2008 PLP 374 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 374 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 374 (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 374 (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 374 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NADEEM — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.D. Naseem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18-Bail grant of
Allegation against accused was that he caught hold of complainant and attempted to commit zina-bil-jabr with her
Accused, according to police officer, during investigation was found to be innocent and that challan had already been submitted in the court, but the trial had not commenced
Case being fit for grant of bail, accused was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.
As per F.I.R. on 24-2-2004 the petitioner caught hold of Mst. Shabnam Aslam complainant and attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her, whereas case was registered on 8-3-2004. The petitioner was arrested on 1.3-3-2004. Hence this bail petition.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. and the same has not been explained by the complainant which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that during investigation petitioner/found to be innocent. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 13-3-2004 but trial has not commenced so far, therefore he deserves concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the complainant and that delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caught hold of Mst. Shabnam Aslam, complainant and attempted to commit Zina-bil-bar with her. Muhammad Shahbaz, A.S.-I. present in Court, states that during investigation petitioner was found to be innocent and that challan has already been submitted in Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner trial has not commenced so far. As stated earlier during investigation petitioner was found to be innocent. As such in the circumstances of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to Muhammad Nadeem petitioner. So application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.79/2004 dated 8-3-2004, Offence under section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan) subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-454/L Bail granted.