2000 PLP 216(2) (YLR)
LAKHWERA alias LAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 216(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Muhammad Sabir, J |
| Parties | LAKHWERA alias LAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 216(2) (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 2000 PLP 216(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Muhammad Sabir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 216(2) (YLR) (LAKHWERA alias LAKHA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18/10(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had allegedly made an attempt to commit Zina-bil‑Jabr with the victim and was in jail for the last about two months‑‑‑Trial although had commenced but only two witnesses had so far been examined in the case and it was not likely to be concluded in the near future‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Seikh Muhammad Nasim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner seeks his post‑arrest bail in a case registered against him under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan Sharif, vide F.I.R. No.92 of 1997, dated 28‑3‑1997. The allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Nasim Bibi neice of the complainant.
2. The petitioner was granted bail before arrest by learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif on 23‑4‑1997 which was recalled by this Court on 11‑12‑1997 observing that he shall be at liberty to consider the application of the petitioner for bail after arrest. The application of the petitioner for post‑arrest has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23‑12‑1999.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he made an attempt to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Nasim Bibi. Learned Sessions Judge has refused bail to the petitioner on the sole ground that earlier bail before arrest allowed to the petitioner was recalled by this Court. He further submits that only two witnesses have been examined by the learned trial Judge so far and conclusion of trial is not within sight.
4. Bail petition has been opposed by the learned State Counsel by submitting that a heinous offence has been committed by the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner allegedly made an attempt to commit rape with Mst. Nasim Bibi. He is in jail since 11‑12‑1997. Trial although has commenced but is not likely to be concluded in the near future. So far only two witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. In these circumstances, petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The petition is accordingly allowed. N.H.Q./L‑42/L Bail allowed.