2008 PLP 1022 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1022 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1022 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1022 (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: 2008 PLP 1022 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Aurangzeb Gilani for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-B
Inordinate delay of one month and eight days in lodging of F.I.R
Abductee was returned through Punchayat
Accused were not the principal accused for the commission of offence of zina
Accused were in jail and no more required to the police for investigation purpose
Accused could not be kept in jail for an indefinite period till the final decision of the case
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.
The petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.389 of 2007, dated 25-11-2007 for offence under section 365-B, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Peerwala, District Multan.
2. Allegedly, the petitioners along with his co-accused abducted one Mst. Gulnaz on 5-9-2007, hence, the case has been registered against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in investigation the petitioners have been found innocent; that there is a delay of one month and eight days in lodging of the F.I.R.; that abductee Mst. Gulnaz was not recovered from the petitioners but she was returned through "Punchayat".
4. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have been opposed by the State counsel.
5. Heard.
6. There is an inordinate delay of one month and eight days in lodging of the F.I.R. The abductee was returned through punchayat. In investigation, the petitioners have been found innocent. The petitioners are not the principal accused for the commission of offence of Zina. The main accused is Muhammad Akram. The petitioners are in jail and no more required to the police for investigation purpose. The petitioners cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period till the final decision of the case. Therefore, this petition is allowed and the .petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) or one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-95/L Bail granted.