1995 P Cr (PLP)
AHMAD alias LOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMAD alias LOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 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: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (AHMAD alias LOTA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/11
Accused had been found guilty by the Investigating Agency of having committed Zina-bil-Jabr with the victim and challan had been submitted in the Court
Three co-accused in the case were at large and had been declared proclaimed offenders
No enmity for the false implication of accused could be pointed out
No reasonable person even of lowly status could coin up the story involving his family honour
Judgment & Decree
Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioner. Ahmed alias Lota being accused in case F.I.R. No. 122, dated 18-6-1994 under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered with Police Station Massan, District Jhang seeks post-arrest bail.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioner committed Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the alleged victim.
2. In support of the petition it was argued that there is unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. when the police station is only at a distance of 7 miles from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel contended that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as according to Medico-Legal Report, the alleged victim has been declared to be habitual of intercourse. It was next argued that the petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than 7 months and as such no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
3. Request of the petitioner was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the State. He contended that challan has been submitted in Court and the trial will conclude in near future. According to him there is thus no ground to release the petitioner on bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the police file with care.
5. The petitioner being accused of heinous offence has been found guilty by the Investigating Agency and accordingly challan has been submitted in the Court. Three co-accused of the petitioner are at large and have been declared proclaimed offenders. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any enmity to falsely implicate the petitioner. It may also be observed that no reasonable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the story involving the family honour. In these circumstances, I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected. N.H.Q./A-827/L Bail refused.