MLD 2001

2001 PLP 293 (MLD)

IMRAN SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3151‑B of 2000, decided on 31st July, 2000.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Asif Jan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 293 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Asif Jan, J
Parties IMRAN SHAH‑‑‑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 2001 PLP 293 (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 2001 PLP 293 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Asif Jan, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 293 (MLD) (IMRAN SHAH‑‑‑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

  • Syed Zafar Abbas Mashhadi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑No allegation of Zina was levelled against accused and there was nothing on record showing kidnapping or abduction or even enticement within meaning of S. 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 against accused‑‑‑Prosecution 'stated that three persons saw the alleged abductee going in the company of accused persons without raising any hue and cry and out of said three persons two were real brothers of the complainant and third one was her brother‑in‑law who could have resisted accused persons from kidnapping or abducting alleged abductee‑‑‑Reasonable grounds within meaning of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C. did not exist to believe that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years‑‑‑Case thus required further inquiry and accused was entitled to grant of bail. Shan Gull (on Court's call) assisted by Zafar Iqbal Sulehria for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Syed Zafar Abbas Mashhadi for Petitioner. Shan Gull (on Court's call) assisted by Zafar Iqbal Sulehria for the State. Imran Shah petitioner aged about 24 years was arrested on the 13th of December, 1999 and is in jail eversince awaiting his trial which has not yet commenced, in pursuance of a case registered vide, F.I.R. No.388 of 1999, dated the 23rd of October, 1999, under section. 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979 at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore, regarding an occurrence which took place on the 21st of October, 1999 in the area of Mohallah Matman, Niaz Baig, which is at a distance of about one and half kilometres from the Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore, where the F.I.R. was lodged on the 23rd of October, 1999 by Mst. Parveen Bibi.

2. According to the complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi, Imran Shah petitioner alongwith three others abducted her daughter Mst. Naiver Batool.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ingredients of section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979, are missing, inasmuch as, there was no abduction or kidnapping or even enticement within the meaning of the said section and oat of the three eye‑witnesses, two were brothers of the complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi while the third eye‑witness namely Rashid is her brother‑in‑law and finally that Syed Muhammad Raza co‑accused against whom there are similar allegations, was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated the 23rd of May, 2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1945‑B of 2000 and therefore, on the principle of consistency, Imran Shah petitioner too was entitled to the same concession.

4. Admittedly, there is no allegation of Zina against Imran Shah petitioner and prima facie it seems that' there was no kidnapping or abduction or even enticement within the meaning of section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979. According to the prosecution three persons saw Mst. Naiver Batool abductee going in the company of the accused persons without raising any hue and cry. Out of three persons, two are stated to be the real brothers of complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi while the third is said to be her brother‑in- law who could have resisted and pre‑empted the accused persons from kidnapping or abducting Mst. Naiver Batool.

5. From the fact and circumstances of the case reasonable grounds within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, prima facie, do not seem to exist. However, the case against the petitioner may be a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which entitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.

6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the such of Rs.50, 000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./I‑27/L Bail granted.