1985 PCr (PLP)
ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kcmra Z Mus tata Bokhari, J |
| Parties | ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedures Code (V. of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedures Code (V. of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PCr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kcmra Z Mus tata Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PCr (PLP) (ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus The STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nisar A. Saeed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Prosecutrix forcibly abducted and subjected to rape for number of days by petitioner and his co‑accused‑‑Petitioner and his co‑accused appearing to have interfered with prosecution evidence so as to procure conflicting statement of prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses‑‑Prima facie, petitioner, held, guilty of offence‑ Bail declined, in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Prosecutrix forcibly abducted and subjected to rape for number of days by petitioner and his co‑accused‑‑Petitioner and his co‑accused appearing to have interfered with prosecution evidence so as to procure conflicting statement of prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses‑‑Prima facie, petitioner, held, guilty of offence‑ Bail declined, in circumstances. Ch. Nisar A. Saeed for Petitioner. Altaf Ibrahim for the State. The petitioner and three others are accused of offence under Article 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979. After abducting Mst. Kausar petitioner and his co‑accused illegally detained her and had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabar with her.
2. It has been argued that the prosecutrix had made more than one conflicting statement and has absolved the petitioner of any liability due to which a case of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the petitioner. It has also been argued that the prosecution witnesses have sworn in affidavits in which they have not supported the prosecution case.
3. The petitioner and his co‑accused are police constables. It is disclosed by the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 27‑6‑1983 that she was forcibly abducted and was subjected to rape for number of days by the petitioner and his co‑accused. Subsequently petitioner and his co‑accused appear to have interfered with the prosecution evidence so as to procure conflicting statement of the prosecutrix and the prosecution witnesses. Prima facie petitioner is guilty of the offence of Zina‑bil‑Jabar alleged against him. I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This petition is dismissed. S.G.D Bail declined