1989 PLP 4791 (MLD)
Mst. SHAMEEM alias AASHEE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4791 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMEEM alias AASHEE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4791 (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 1989 PLP 4791 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4791 (MLD) (Mst. SHAMEEM alias AASHEE‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ahad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss.13, 14 &. 18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused was allegedly running a brothel house‑ Assertion was not supported by any evidence on record‑‑No allegation of receiving any money from the two persons found present there for commission of Zina with other women was levelled‑‑No money was recovered from accused‑ Bail granted in circumstances. Imran Nazir for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ahad for Petitioner. Imran Nazir for the State. Petitioner Mst. Shamim alias Aashee has applied for bail in a case registered against her and some others with Police Station Sanda, Lahore for an offence under sections 13/14 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. dated 12‑3‑1989. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R, are that the first informant Niamat Ali, A.S.I. received information that the petitioner was running a brothel house. She had kept a boy by the name of Riaz who brought men to the said house for purposes of commission of Zina. In pursuance of said information, a raiding party was constituted which raided the premises, where the petitioner along with one Riaz was sitting in the court‑yard. In a room there were two cots on which the co -accused of the petitioner were sitting and were preparing for the commission of Zina. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence which could indicate that the petitioner was running a brothel house. Submits that at the time of commission of the offence, the petitioner was sitting in the court‑yard, therefore, she cannot be held responsible for what was happening inside the room. Contends that the allegation that in one room two different men were found with two women naked, preparing for the commission of Zina, is most unnatural. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was running a brothel house, but so far there is no evidence on the file which could lend support to this assertion. There is no allegation that the two men who were found m the house so raided, had paid any money to the petitioner for the purpose of commission of zina with two other women, who were also co‑accused. At the time of raid no money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In these circumstances, I feel it is a case of further inquiry, therefore, she is allowed bail provided she furnishes security in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. SA./S‑541/L Bail granted.