1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 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 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Haroon for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10--Co-accused in similar circumstances granted bail by Sessions Judge--Bail granted to accused by High Court. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Shaukat Haroon for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Hussain in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Mananwala vide F.I.R. No. 86, dated 13-4-1981. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was seen committing Zina with Mst. Zainab Bibi on the night between 12/13-4-1981.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old man i.e. more than of 60 years in age and the ground on which the bail was granted to the co-accused is equally available to him. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge in his order after having held that the allegations against the co-accused that she was seen committing Zina with the petitioner were doubtful was not justified in refusing bail to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert this aspect of the matter.
4. Without expressing any opinion lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I am of the view that the matter enquires further inquiry. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees tent thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. S. A./4607/L Bail granted.