1987 PLP 2004 (MLD)
GHULAM QADIR alias SHAUKAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2004 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR alias SHAUKAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2004 (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 1987 PLP 2004 (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: 1987 PLP 2004 (MLD) (GHULAM QADIR alias SHAUKAT — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16--Bail, grant of-Abductee not seen by anyone going away with accused-- Abductee stating in affidavit that she was neither abducted nor Zina committed with her by anyone--Case being of further inquiry, bail granted to accused. Muhammad Aslam for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16--Bail, grant of-Abductee not seen by anyone going away with accused-- Abductee stating in affidavit that she was neither abducted nor Zina committed with her by anyone--Case being of further inquiry, bail granted to accused. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam for the State. A case under section 16/10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered against Ghulam Qadir petitioner with Police Station Waris Khan, Rawalpindi. According to the F.I.R. one Mst. Rukhsana was married to Abdul Aziz the first informant on 23-4-1987. It is alleged that Mst. Rukhsana left her husband on 26-4-1987 and went away with the petitioner on the same day. She was later on arrested- near a bus stand in Rawalpindi alongwith the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. It is further contended that Mst. Rukhsana was also co-accused in the present case. She has been released on bail and her case is at par with the present petitioner, therefore, he is also entitled to hail. It is further submitted that her statement before the police cannot be used against the petitioner. This has been controverted by learned counsel for the State. 3. A perusal of the record indicates that she was not seen by anyone going away with the petitioner. The police during investigation has recovered record pertaining to Muzaffarabad's Hotel where the petitioner alongwith Mst. Rukhsana had stayed. I am afraid that the record of the hotel is not of much use to them unless somebody from the hotel identifies them to be the same persons who had stayed there. Mst. Rukhsana has also sworn an affidavit which has been placed on the file. According to which she was neither abducted nor Zina was committed with her by anyone. This makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. In such circumstances the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Islamabad. S.A./G-61/L Bail granted.