1989 PLP 4980 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4980 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4980 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4980 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4980 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.D. Tahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly attempted to commit Zina with complainant during the night‑‑Complainant later exonerating him in statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.‑‑Nothing on record to show statement of complainant having been made under coercion‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State. Petitioner seeks bail in the case registered against him under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Phokalian, Distt. Sialkot.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioner had, per his own request, stayed as a guest for the night in the house of the complainant and during night had attempted to commit Zina with her. In that, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that he had moved on to the cot of the complainant and had not only tried to open the string of her Shalwar but had also pulled her breast.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has been involved falsely in this case and that the informant in her statement made later under section 164, Cr.P.C. has exonerated him of the charge of attempt to commit Zina.
4. Learned counsel for the State has not denied the factum of statement made by the informant. He has however, submitted that according to his instructions the statement was made under coercion. He has not produced any document in support of the said contention.
5. If that was so, the Investigating Officer could have recorded the statement of the informant in the daily diary register and produced the same in Court. The contention of learned counsel for the State that as a result of the statement made by the informant, serious trouble has errupted in the family as a result of which her husband has sent her a notice for divorce, in my view does not advance the case of the prosecution to refuse bail to the petitioner. For the reasons enumerated above, a case for bail appears to have been made out. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sialkot. S.A./M‑1486/L. Bail allowed.