2006 PLP 2218 (YLR)
JAAN MUHAMMAD alias ADNAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2218 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, J |
| Parties | JAAN MUHAMMAD alias ADNAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2218 (YLR)?
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 PLP 2218 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2218 (YLR) (JAAN MUHAMMAD alias ADNAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghufran Khurshid Imtiazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 13 & 16
Allegations made against accused were against statements of alleged abductees recorded by Judicial Magistrate in which alleged abductees had stated that they had left their home at their will
Said statements when put juxtaposed with those subsequently made before police, had made case of accused to be that of further inquiry
All other accused nominated in F.I.R., had already been enlarged on bail
Accused was included in the list of accused on the statement of mother of alleged abductees after almost 6 months of registration of the case
Though incomplete challan was submitted, but no evidence had been recorded and completion of the trial did not appear in sight- Accused was no more required for investigation and his claim of being a previous non-convict was also not seriously challenged by prosecution
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. M.D. Shahzad for the State. Walayat, S.-I., Police Station Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum with record.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
The petitioner was arrested on 9-10-2005 in case F.I.R. No.41, dated 29-3-2005 under sections 10, 13 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 337-F(v), P.P.C. Police Station Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum. Earlier his application for concession of post-arrest bail was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum on 14-11-2005."
2. One Muhammad Zafar son of Khush Hal Khan resident of Dhodi, District Jhelum lodged the above said F.I.R. alleging abduction of her two married daughters namely Mst. Ghulam Zohra and Mst. Robina by Ghulam Shabbir with the active assistance of Shamim Adil son of Ghulam Muhammad, laved son of Muhammad Ali Kora, Sajid son of Muhammad Ali, Naseem Begum widow of Muhammad Ali and Irshad Bibi wife of Abdul Rehman residents of the village. Subsequently the name of the present petitioner was also included in the list of accused on the statement of the mother of the alleged abductees.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State I am A inclined to allow the concession of post- arrest bail to the petitioner for the following reasons:-- First, the allegations made against the petitioner are against the statements of the alleged abductees, dated 20-10-2005 recorded by Mr. Abdul Qayyum, Civil Judge/ Judicial Magistrate, Karachi South in Criminal Cases Nos. 39 and
40. In these tatements both the alleged abductees stated to have left their home at their own will. These statements when juxtaposed with those subsequently made before Police in this case make the case of the petitioner to be that of further inquiry; Second, all the accused nominated in the F.I.R. have already been enlarged on bail; Third, the petitioner was included in the list of accused on the statement of the mother of the alleged abductees after almost 6 months of the registration of the case; Fourth, although incomplete challan in the case was submitted on 3-11-2005, yet no evidence has so far been recorded. Therefore, the completion of the trial does not appear in sight; and Lastly, the petitioner is no more required for investigation. His claim of being a previous non-convict is also not seriously challenged by the prosecution.
4. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./J-18/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.