1999 PLP 3452 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3452 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3452 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3452 (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: 1999 PLP 3452 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12
Order passed by Trial Court had shown that complainant who was father of victim alongwith other eye-witnesses had sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen occurrence and had exonerated accused
Case against accused, in circumstances, was covered by S 497(2), Cr.P.C. which required further inquiry into guilt of accused
Judgment & Decree
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12
Order passed by Trial Court had shown that complainant who was father of victim alongwith other eye-witnesses had sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen occurrence and had exonerated accused
Case against accused, in circumstances, was covered by S 497(2), Cr.P.C. which required further inquiry into guilt of accused
Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner. Iqbal Hussain for the State This is an application for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 109 of 1998 Police Station Kanganpur District Kasur; registered under section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegation against the petitioner was, that he committed sodomy with son of the complainant namely Naveed Ahmad aged about 8/9 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant and the eye-witnesses have sworn affidavit to the effect that they had not seen the occurrence and they also appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of bail application of the petitioner and this fact is mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is attached with this petition as Annexure B. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that these witnesses have not appeared before the Investigating Officer.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the complainant who is father of Naveed Ahmad, he alongwith other eye-witnesses p have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen the occurrence and had exonerated the petitioner. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is covered by section 497(2), Cr. P.C. which requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Kasur. H.B.T./M-787/L Bail granted.