1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Gul Zarin Kiyani, 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 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Gul Zarin Kiyani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saleem Kureja for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 9th September, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R., lodged by prosecutrix alleging petitioner having committed Zina with her, not supported by her medical examination and Chemical Analyst‑‑Held: A case of further inquiry‑ Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.M. Saleem Kureja for Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State. Date of hearing: 9th September, 1985. This is a petition for bail after arrest. Petitioner is alleged to have committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Bashiran, a girl aged about 16 years. She reported the matter to the police and a case under Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered against the petitioner. He was arrested on 14‑7‑1985. He applied for bail which was refused to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge‑I, Okara, vide order, dated 14‑7‑1985.
2. Mr. M.M. Saleem Kureja, counsel for the petitioner urged that no offence under Article 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), was made out against the petitioner, and that the accused had been falsely involved. Attention was invited to the medico‑legal report, wherein hymen was found intact. No redness or congestion was noticed. It was further observed that the vagina admits one finger with difficulty. It was also urged that the swabs sent to the Chemical Examiner were not found stained with semen. Report of the Chemical Examiner has been produced today.
3. It is forcefully contended that in the light of the medical report and the opinion of the Chemical Analyst, no case of rape was made out and at the most it could be a case under section 355, P.P.C., and the accused, in these circumstances, was entitled to be released on bail during trial.
4. In the F.I.R., lodged at the instance of Mst. Bashiran, the victim of the crime, she had stated that the accused had committed Zina. This assertion, speaking prima facie and tentatively for the purposes of bail only, is not supported by her‑medical examination, and the opinion of the Chemical Analyst. This makes out a case for further inquiry. Petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Okara. S. G. D. Bail granted.