1987 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL HAFEEZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11--Bail, grant of--No eye-witness as to commission of Zina--Vaginal swabs sent to Chemical Examiner reported as negative- Prosecutrix sui juris and about 20 years of age--Accused in custody for last about eleven months allowed bail in circumstances. Abdul Qadeer for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11--Bail, grant of--No eye-witness as to commission of Zina--Vaginal swabs sent to Chemical Examiner reported as negative- Prosecutrix sui juris and about 20 years of age--Accused in custody for last about eleven months allowed bail in circumstances. Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner. Abdul Qadeer for the State. Abdul Hafeez petitioner who is involved in a case under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. 1979, has moved this petition for bail. The prosecution version is that on 1st June, 1982 he abducted his mother's sister's daughter Mst. Farzana who is also an accused in this case. The case was registered on 18th June, 1982 on the report of Muhammad Inayat, father of Mst. Farzana. She was recovered from the petitioner on 23rd June 1982 and was arrested in this case on 27th June, 1982. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not show that the petitioner had abducted Mst. Farzana nor the prosecution is in possession of evidence regarding the allegation of Zina, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. i\hp learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. 3. I have gone through the relevant material. The learned State counsel concedes that there is no eye-witness as to commission of Zina. The record further shows that vaginal swabs were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report received from him is in the negative. In the medico-legal report the age of Mst. Farzana was mentioned as 16 years. According to police record she is 20 years of age. The learned counsel submits that according to her own showing she was taken from place to place but she did not tell any body that she had been abducted. The petitioner was arrested on 23rd June, 1982 and is in jail since then. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I feel that a case for the enlargement of the petitioner is made out. Consequently, he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala. S.G.D. Bail allowed.