PCRLJ 1994

1994 P Cr (PLP)

Mst. NAILA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.578/B of 1994, decided on 7th March, 1994,
Honorable Judges
Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J
Parties Mst. NAILA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. NAILA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109

Bail, grant of

Except for the police no public witness claimed to have seen the alleged occurrence

Accused was behind the bars for about six months and her case appeared to be one o further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Syed Fazal Hussain Jaffari for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner. Syed Fazal Hussain Jaffari for the State. This is a bail application on behalf of Mst. Naila who was arrested by the police. on 29-9-1993 in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (E.O.H.) Ordinance, 1979 and section 109, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that on receipt of a secret information, the police raided the house of Mst. Naila and found her engaged in Zina with Rehmat Ullah.

3. It is contended that the case is based on false allegations and except for police there is no public witness who claims to have seen the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is stated to be behind the bars for about 6 months.

4. In the above circumstances, it appears to be a case of further inquiry and accordingly she is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs:20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha. N.H.Q./N-222/L Bail allowed.