PCRLJ 1992

1992 P Cr (PLP)

NAOI HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
1991-February-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties NAOI HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (NAOI HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Khalil Mahmood Farooq for Petitioner.
  • 6. While parting with the order a word of caution to the police and advice to the Advocate-General to take up the matter with the Provincial Government. The A.S.P. has given reasons for reporting the case for cancellation as if he was sitting on judgment in the case. If we have to leave the police as the final arbitrators as attempted by the A.S.P. then the judicial system may well be packed up. The police is directed to put up the challan and let the Court give its verdict in due course.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11

Bail, grant of

No respectable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up sort of a case involving honour of his family unless there is inverterate enmity or the girl or her family is extremely depraved

No such situation appeared in the case

Delay in FIR and medical examination of the complainant had been explained

Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

On 4-12-1990 Mst. Qayyum Akhtar complainant, an unmarried girl of about 18 years, who had done her nursing course, reached the office of D.H.S: Faisalabad, to obtain her letter of appointment. There Naqi Hussain Shah petitioner, a clerk in the Health Department and posted in R.H.C. Khurarianwala alongwith Taj Muhammad co-accused met her, she being previously known to them, they took here away on the excuse that her uncle Abdul Ghafoor had taken away the letter of appointment and was present at T.B. Chowk. There she was taken in a hotel by the petitioner and Zina-bil-Jabr committed with her while his co-accused kept guard. Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Boota on the alarm reached there but the petitioner and his co- accused were able to make good their escape. On these facts F.I.R. was lodged on 10-12-1990.

2. The complainant got herself medically examined on 8-12-1990 and that too after moving application to the Magistrate and. after obtaining his order for medical examination. The medical report does not indicate any mark of violence on her person or private parts and she was reported to have old vaginal tears. However, the vaginal swabs, sent to the Chemical Examiner, have been reported to be semen-stained.

3. Contentions raised are that the F.I.R. and the medical examination were delayed, there was no explanation for the delay, the place of occurrence was a thoroughfare and had the kind of incident, as reported, taken place, many people would have come to know of it, the petitioner was present at Khurarianwala and then at Jaranwala on 3rd arid 4th of December, 1990 while perfroming his duty and that the case was the result of the efforts of his opponents. The A.S.P. who finally concluded the investigation has accepted the grounds now canvassed before the Court and the case is being sent up for cancellation.

4. The complainant hails from Chak No.67/R.B. Dichkot, Abdul Ghafoor P.W. is from Chak No.247/R.B. Dichkot, Muhammad Boota P.W. from Chak No.252/R.B. Gojra while the petitioner hails from Chak No.224/R.B. These Chaks as stated at the bar by the Police Officer, are many miles from each other. The complainant girl alongwith her mother and her witness Abdul Ghafoor P.W. are present in Court and have also been heard.

5. No respectable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the sort of case unless there is inveterate enmity or the girl or her family is extremely depraved. No such a situation appears in the present case. When questioned who were the opponents of the petitioner who had cooked up the complainant to report the kind of case in hand, shelter was sought behind the plea of they being extremely powerful and divulging their names was extremely detrimental. Hence the plea in this regard cannot be given any weight. Of course, the medical examination was delayed and so was the F.I.R. but there is explanation for the same. According to the application moved to the Magistrate for medical examination the local police had been approached but the application was returned with the order that medical examination be got done first. It was only on the order of the Magistrate that the medical examination could be done and the case reported. Keeping in view all these considerations no ground for bail, at this stage, is made out. Petition dismissed.

6. While parting with the order a word of caution to the police and advice to the Advocate-General to take up the matter with the Provincial Government. The A.S.P. has given reasons for reporting the case for cancellation as if he was sitting on judgment in the case. If we have to leave the police as the final arbitrators as attempted by the A.S.P. then the judicial system may well be packed up. The police is directed to put up the challan and let the Court give its verdict in due course. N.H.Q./N-48/L Bail refused.