1986 PLP 1535 (SCMR)
SALEHEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1535 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SALEHEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1535 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1535 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah 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 1535 (SCMR) (SALEHEEN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 1986.
- Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 13-5-1986 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 154/11 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11 & 16--Cancellation of bail--Accused-respondents charged under Ss.11 & 16 of Ordinance--Order of High Court allowing them bail challenged on ground that offence being punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, respondents should not have been allowed bail merely because police no more required their presence and that High Court did not record its satisfaction that there appeared reasonable ground for believing that respondents were not guilty--Supreme Court after examining facts of case found that High Court had exercised its discretion rightly and declined to interfere--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Cancellation of bail granted to the two respondents namely Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina is sought by this petitioner on the ground that the two accused/ respondents committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, and, therefore, they should have not been allowed the concession of bail merely because the police no more requires the presence of the two accused, and that the bail has been allowed by the learned High Court Judge without recording the satisfaction of the Court that there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that the accused /respondents have not been guilty of. offences under sections 11 and 16 under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (Ordinance VII of 1979).
2. We have examined the facts of the case. The two accused/ respondents, named above, were charged by the complainant Saleheen for offences under sections 11 and 16 of the aforesaid Ordinance. On the other side, there evidence that Mst. Ghulam Sakina accused/ respondent divorced by her husband Hayat Muhammad and that the accused /respondent Muhammad Bashir had no knowledge that Mst. Ghulam Sakina was a married woman.
3. We find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exercised his discretion rightly and we see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, dated 13th May, 1986. Petition is, consequently, dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.