2000 PLP 1807 (MLD)
AISMAT BEGUM‑ ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1807 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | AISMAT BEGUM‑ ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1807 (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 2000 PLP 1807 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1807 (MLD) (AISMAT BEGUM‑ ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Anwar‑ul‑Haq Pannu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Female accused and her co‑accused though had committed heinous offence, but accused being a lady her case was covered by fast proviso to S.497(2), Cr:P.C., especially when she had a suckling baby‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail. Ali Raza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Anwar‑ul‑Haq Pannu for Petitioner. Ali Raza for the State. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was caught red‑handed by the police alongwith three other persons who were committing Zina with the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel claims bail on two‑fold grounds, first is that the petitioner is lady, her case is covered by the first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C, and second ground is that petitioner has a suckling baby aged about 10 months.
3. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and she has committed a heinous offence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the last date of hearing Alamdar Hussian, S.‑I. had appeared alongwith State Counsel and he was directed to make an enquiry with regard number and ages of the children of the petitioner and to submit the same today. Needful has not been done. I cannot wait for that report. Although, a heinous offence has been committed by the petitioner and her co‑accused but being lady her case is covered by the first proviso of section 497 (1) Cr.P.C., moreover, she has a suckling baby. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30.000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court. H. B.T./A‑74/L Bail granted.