1986 PLP 1014 (SCMR)
Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1014 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1014 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1014 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Shafiur Rahman, and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1014 (SCMR) (Mst. IMTIAZ BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Jamal Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Mian M. Ajmal, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Petitioner was charged by her father Faqir Muhammad for an offence under section 10/11 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She applied for bail but all the Courts below refused to release her on bail. Thereafter, she filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 53/P/85 in this Court but she later on prayed for its withdrawal and per order, dated 8‑1‑1986 this Court allowed to withdraw her application in order to enable her to file another application for bail in the Peshawar High Court on the basis of order passed in favour of the co‑accused Ajmali. Petitioner filed second application for bail but the same was also dismissed in limine by the learned Chief Justice vide the impugned order, dated 25‑1‑1986 passed in Cr. Miscellaneous 67/86.
2. Petitioner has now filed another Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 5/P/86 against the impugned order stating that the report in the case was lodged after considerable delay; that the petitioner being a woman, her confinement would not be desirable; that she had entered into a valid marriage with the co‑accused who has already been released on bail; that the prosecution has not established that she was in the Nikah of Gul Zaman.
3. We have gone through the file. We convert this petition into appeal and grant bail to the petitioner in the sum of rupees twenty thousand (Rs.20,000) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A . C. , Nowshera. M . Y . H . Bail granted.