1993 P Cr (PLP)
AFTAB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AFTAB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 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 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (AFTAB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain and Seerat Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979, S.10
Complainant (prosecutrix) in her supplementary statement had exonerated the accused
Case of accused, therefore, was duly covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. and he was allowed bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1972 SC 81 and P L D 1972 SC 277 rel. Ch. Muhammad Hussain and Seerat Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner. Ali Baqir Najfi for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1993. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.383/92, dated 14-12-1992, under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore.
2. According to the F.I.R. in brief, the complainant was enticed by being offered a lift on a motor-cycle of the petitioner and had been taken to a house, where she was subjected to Zina by the petitioner alongwith a co-accused named therein. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and his description has been stated therein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, tile complainant has made a contradictory statement in respect of the petitioner it her supplementary statement recorded on 29-12-1992, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge during the hearing of the bail petition which was dismissed by the impugned order i.e. she had claimed the petitioner to be the accused named in the F.I.R. while opposing the bail before arrest of the petitioner, but during the hearing of the petitioner's bail after arrest, she had stated before the Court that he was not her accused and had also filed an affidavit in support thereto. Therefore, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is duly covered under subsection (2) or section 497, Cr.P.C. and in this respect, reliance is placed on P L D 1972 SC 81 and P L D 1972 SC 277, wherein it has been held that neither the law is to be stretched in favour of the prosecution nor the bail is to be withheld as punishment.
4. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. (City)/Duty Magistrate, Lahore. N.H.Q./A-462/L Bail granted.