1988 P Cr (PLP)
MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (MANZOOR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rehmat Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused in jail for about six months‑‑Trial not yet commenced‑‑ Abductee admittedly sui juris‑ Accused claiming to have married abductee‑‑Case being of further enquiry, bail granted in circumstances. Hafiz Zhulam Bari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused in jail for about six months‑‑Trial not yet commenced‑‑ Abductee admittedly sui juris‑ Accused claiming to have married abductee‑‑Case being of further enquiry, bail granted in circumstances. Malik Rehmat Khan for Petitioner. Hafiz Zhulam Bari for the State. Petitioner Manzoor Ahmad alias Manza has moved this post‑arrest bail petition under Section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a case registered against him finder section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad, vide F.I.R.No. 183/87, dated 25‑6‑1987.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. and that no satisfactory explanation thereof was given by the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged abductee is the legally‑wedded wife of the petitioner and that she is sui juris person aged 15/17 years. Learned counsel maintained that alleged occurrence took place on 21‑6‑1987 and that the petitioner was arrested by the Police on 20‑9‑1987 and since then he is behind the bars It is next urged by the learned counsel that all the co‑accused have been allowed bail. The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel stated that the abductee did not join the investigation. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the case does not fall under the prohibitory clause.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months. The trial of the petitioner has not commenced so far. The abductee is admittedly a sui juris person and that the plea of the petitioner is that he has married the abductee in accordance with Muslim law. Be that as it may, this is a case of further enquiry. Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. S. A. /M‑655/L Bail granted.