2006 PLP 1871 (YLR)
SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1871 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J |
| Parties | SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1871 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1871 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1871 (YLR) (SARFRAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Arif Bhinder for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12
Allegation against accused was that he took complainant from his house and his co-accused committed sodomy with him
No allegation of sodomy was found against accused
Accused was in judicial lock-up since long, but no witness had been examined so far
Case being fit for grant of bail to accused, he was allowed bail. Ch. Liaqat Ali for the State. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for the Complainant. Bashir Ahmad, A.S.-I. along with Record.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J
The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.279 of 2004 dated 30-12-2004 under section 377, P.P.C. and section 12 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance,1979 registered at Police Station Midh Ranjha, District Sargodha.
2. As per F.I.R. on 29-12-2004 at about 8-00 p.m. petitioner took Zulfiqar Ahmad, complainant to the garden of Ghulam Abbas son of Ghulam Ali, where Sarfraz son of Meera and Nawaz son of Noor Muhammad committed sodomy upon him. The petitioner remained there at the place of occurrence when his co-accused committed sodomy upon complainant. The case was registered on 30-12-2004 and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 17-2-2005. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is no allegation of sodomy against the petitioner. He contended that as per F.I.R. petitioner brought complainant from his house but he (complainant) has not levelled allegation of sodomy against him, therefore, the case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 17-2-2005 but no P.W. has been examined so far, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed this application.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he took the complainant from his house and his co-accused committed sodomy upon him. He is in judicial lock-up since 17-2-2005 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner no witness has been examined so far. There is no allegation of sodomy against him. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if petitioner failed to appear before learned trial Court the trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of any party during trial. H.B.T./S-449/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.