1998 PLP 1621 (MLD)
MAHBOOB ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1621 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAHBOOB ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1621 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1621 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1621 (MLD) (MAHBOOB ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 157(1)(b) & 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 16/10
Alleged occurrence had taken place about one month prior to registration of F.I.R. and statement of alleged abductee had not been recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. and she had also not been medically examined
Nothing was available on record to show that alleged abductee was produced by accused
After registration of case against accused, alleged a4ductee had again left house of her parents and complainant had again initiated proceedings against the accused, but such subsequent complaint was not investigated by Investigating Agency as being false
All such facts had made case of accused open for further inquiry
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Qamar-ul-Hassan Thaeem for the State Date of hearing: 24th July, 1997. The petitioner stands charged under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.245 of 1996 dated 6-8-1996 alongwith Mst. Rajah Bibi and Muhammad Nawaz, for abducting Mst. Sakina Bibi daughter of complainant Qasim Ali and thereafter, subjecting her to Zina-Bil-Jabr.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 20/25 days in lodging the F.I.R., that alleged recovery of Mst. Sakina Bibi had not been effected from the petitioner, that no statement of alleged abductee had been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., that even the medical examination of the alleged abductee had not been carried out, that the alleged abductee has again left the house of her parents and another complaint has been lodged against the present petitioner and others which has been filed by the Investigating Agency, that petitioner was arrested on 23-12-1997 and since then is in judicial lock-up. He, thus, submits that the petition may be accepted and the petitioner be admitted to bail.
3. On the other hand bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that occurrence had taken place 20/25 days prior to the registration of the F.I.R. dated 6-8-1996. It is also evident from the record that statement of alleged abductee has not been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. and similarly 'she has also not been medically examined. Again, there is nothing on the record to show that alleged abductee was produced by the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested on 23-12-1996 and since then is in judicial lock-up. Again it has come on record that even after the registration of this case the alleged abductee Mst. Sakina Bibi has again left the house of her parents and the complainant has again initiated proceedings against the petitioner and others and that the said complaint has been filed by the Investigating Agency being false. All these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry. Accordingly, petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./M-666/L Bail granted.