2006 P Cr (PLP)
BARKHURDA R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BARKHURDA R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (BARKHURDA R — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Bashir Ahmad.for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16
Police Order (22 of 2002), Art.18(6)
Accused had been implicated by the victim in her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. in the commission of offence of Zina
Finding of Investigating Officer declaring accused innocent, had no bearing as High Court had directed D.I.-G. to hear abductee and pass an order for transfer of investigation
Matter was referred to Standing Board under Art.18(6) of Police Order, 2002 and subsequent Investigating Officer, after securing permission from Magistrate arrested petitioner and found him guilty
Challan had been submitted
Order of subsequent investigation was also challenged through constitutional petition by accused, which was dismissed
Accused had prima facie committed an offence which fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail petition, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.171, dated 21-8-2003 registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Kirana District Sargodha.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner along with his co-accused is that they abducted Mst. Naseem Bibi when she was going on a cycle with her father-in-law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared innocent in the first investigation and that the allegation of commission of Zina has not been levelled against him calling this case for further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has been directly involved in the commission of the Offence of Zina in the statement of victim recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. and the first Investigating Officer was influenced, and under political pressure exonerated the petitioner from the offence which eventually ended in his discharge by the learned Magistrate. Later on, on her petition bearing Writ Petition No.17559 of 2003, D.I.-G. Range Sargodha was directed to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order for transfer of investigation in view of provision of ,Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002. The investigation was changed and the subsequent Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against the petitioner.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner has been implicated by the victim in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. in the commission of offence of Zina. The finding of the Investigating Officer declaring the petitioner innocent has no bearing as this Court in Writ Petition No.17559 of 2003 has directed the D.I.-G. to hear the abductee/victim and pass an order for transfer of investigation. The matter was referred to the Standing Board under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 and the subsequent Investigating Officer after securing permission from the learned Magistrate arrested the petitioner and found him guilty. The challan has been submitted. This order of the subsequent investigation was also challenged through Writ Petition No.13899 of 2004 by the petitioner which was dismissed. The petitioner has prima facie committed an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, no ground for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed. H.B.T./B-14/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.