2004 PLP 1297 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1297 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1297 (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 2004 PLP 1297 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1297 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑High Court had dismissed the bail application moved by the accused earlier on merits ‑‑‑Abductee, the star witness in the case, had now been murdered and her statement under S.164, Cr. P. C. was not recorded‑‑‑No chance for conviction of the accused in the circumstances if trial subsisted‑‑‑Bail could not be withheld as punishment‑Case of accused had become that of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was no more required for investigation‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused accordingly. Ch. Muhammad Hafiz Rafique for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahal for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Hafiz Rafique for the State. Muhammad Aslam seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 51 dated 5‑3‑2003 under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered with Police Station, Bhera District Sargodha at the instance of Umar Hayat.
2. The petitioner earlier moved this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No.4097‑B of 2003 for grant of after arrest bail which was declined by this Court on 31‑7‑2003. He has repeated this petition on the ground that no statement of the alleged abductee was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after her recovery and now she has been murdered on 25‑8‑2003 and in this regard case has already been registered vide F.I.R. No.155 at Police Station, Phulrwan District, Sargodha at the instance of Muhammad Munir Ahmad, complainant, therefore, after death of Shamim, who was star witness of the case, there is no chance for conviction of the petitioner after trial, so, he be enlarged on bail.
3. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Although the petitioner was declined after arrest bail by this Court on merits, but in absence of star prosecution witness i.e. Shamim Akhtar, who has admittedly been murdered, there is no chance for conviction of the petitioner after trial. It is settled law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment. Petitioner has placed on record copy of F.I.R, No.155 dated 25‑7‑2003 registered at Police Station Phulrwan, and in absence of statement of Shamim Akhtar, under section 164, Cr.P.C., the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. He is no more required for investigation, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑39/L Bail allowed.