1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUSHTAQ alias MAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ alias MAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUSHTAQ alias MAKA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Idrees for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)‑ Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Challan not submitted as yet before the Trial Court despite a period of about seven months had expired since registration of case and no plausible explanation for such delay forthcoming‑‑Petitioner, held, was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delay alone. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the Complainant. Ch. Idrees for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Idrees for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the Complainant. Ch. Idrees for the State. Date of hearing: 13th July, 1987. The petitioner Mushtaq alias Maka has moved this petition for bail after arrest under sections 497, 498, Cr.P.C., in a case arising out of F.I. R. No.15 of 1987 dated 20‑1‑1987, registered against the petitioner under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence in hand took place on 16‑1‑1987 and so far challan has not been filed in Court. It is next argued forcefully by the learned counsel that there is no sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of four days and no explanation whatsoever has been given by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that from the plain reading of the F.I.R. it is clear that the prosecutrix was not abducted inasmuch as she came back to her own house. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The investigating officer is also present before me. He has stated that so far challan has not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a fit case for bail on the ground that so far challan has not been submitted before the Court for the trial of the petitioner despite the fact that about seven months have passed. 4. After hearing the learned counsel and without expressing any opinion on merits of, the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delay in the submission of challan before the Court for the trial of the petitioner. The Investigating officer has not been able to give sufficient explanation for not submitting the challan before the Court. In view of the circumstances of the case, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. S. G. D./M‑373/L Bail allowed.