1987 PLP 3100 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 3100 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Arif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 3100 (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 1987 PLP 3100 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Arif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 3100 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sohail Akhtar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S.10--Bail grant of--Accused petitioner behind bar eversince his arrest-- Co-accused, daughter of petitioner's sister-in-law, granted bail--Case appearing to be one-of further enquiry--No useful purpose likely to be served in keeping accused in jail--Bail granted. Shaukat Javed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Complainant lodged a report on 30-5-1987 at 1.50 p.m. at Police Station Lower Mall, Lahore, to the effect that he was a Manager of the Gulf Hotel, Chowk Islamia, Lahore and while he was attending a phone-call at 1.30 p.m., a boy and a girl whose particulars were to be known latter, entered the hotel and without getting an entry (registration) went upstairs. He thought that they would come back for registration. After waiting for half an hour, with two persons who had come to make a telephone call, went to Room No. 1 and found the boy and the girl unclothed committing Zina. A case under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered vide F.I.R. No. 145/87.
2. The petitioner and the girl were arrested on 30-5-1987. They applied for bail. The girl has been allowed bail but the application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 23-6-1987. Petitioner has filed this application for bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution story is false altogether; it is unbelievable that the offence was being committed without the door of the room being bolted; that the two witnesses are stock witnesses; and that circumstantial evidence is of no value. The case of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel, is that he was an employee of the Hotel and the girl is a daughter of the sister of petitioner's wife and was to go to his house. He being busy asked her to wait and the complainant tried to molest her whereupon a quarrel had ensued and the complainant being an influential person got a false case registered against the petitioner. Relationship aforesaid was brought to the notice of the investigating- agency. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
4. The petitioner is behind the bars eversince his arrest. Co-accused Mst. Sheeman is the daughter of petitioner's) sister-in-law. She has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The case appears to be one of further inquiry specially in view of the relationship. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in jail. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount. to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M. Y.H./M-376/L Bail granted.