2002 PLP 949 (YLR)
ABDUL GHAFFAR alias PHARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 949 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFFAR alias PHARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 949 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 949 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 949 (YLR) (ABDUL GHAFFAR alias PHARI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑ Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Victim was medically examined after six days‑‑‑No injury was found on her person despite alleged beating by the accused with the butt of the pistol and fists‑‑‑Delay in lodging F.I.R. coupled with the fact that police had recommended that an offence under S.354, P. P. C. was made out had made the case of the accused one of further inquiry under S.497(2), Cr. P. C., and he was thus granted bail. Sardar Muhammad Farooq Dogar for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Farooq Dogar for the Complainant. The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.177 dated 26‑10‑2001 under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979 read with section 354, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari.
2. Brief facts of the case as given in the F.I.R. are that the complainant on 20‑10‑2001 at about 4/5‑00 p.m. was cutting grass for her animals. Suddenly, the petitioner armed with pistol came there and dragged her to a nearby water Khal. The complainant started raising alarm. However, the petitioner gave him blows with his fists and pistol butt. He also broke her string of her Shalwar and started committing Zina with her. On hue and cry of the complainant, the witnesses were attracted there. Whereupon, the petitioner ran away with his weapon and consequently when the husband of the petitioner carne back, the instant case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of six days in registering of the case; that the medical examination was also conducted on 26‑10 -2001 i.e. Six days after the occurrence. According to the medical report, there is no injury on the person of the victim; that the Investigating Officer has found that an offence under section 354, P.P.C. was made out and the challan was submitted under the same offence. It is finally argued that the instant case has been registered falsely against the petitioner because the complainant was cutting grass unauthorisedly from the fields of the petitioner. She was stopped and due to this grudge this false case stands registered.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail application. It is contended that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and specific role is attributed to him that there is no reason for falsely implicating the petitioner in the case.
5. In the earlier part of the day, when the case was called a police officer with record was present. However, now the case is repeatedly called. Nobody has turned up with record.
6. In view of the fact that the victim, was medically examined after six days and no injury was found on her person, despite she was allegedly given beating by the petitioner with the butt of the pistol and fists and also delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes out a case of further inquiry. The police has also recommended that an offence under section 354, P.P.C. has made out. It will be seen by the learned trial Court whether a case under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina is made out or under section 354, P.P.C. However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. S.M.A.H./A‑508/L Bail allowed.