1989 PLP 3711 (MLD)
ANWAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3711 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | ANWAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3711 (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 1989 PLP 3711 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3711 (MLD) (ANWAR Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Bail‑‑No explanation was given by the first informant for getting case registered against accused after a delay of almost nine months‑‑Investigating Officer admitted that during investigation the statement of Nikah Khawan was recorded who stated that he had performed the Nikah of the accused with the alleged abductee‑‑Case of accused in circumstances needed further inquiry‑ Accused was allowed bail. Akhtar Shabbir, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdul Samad for State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan for Petitioner. Akhtar Shabbir, Addl. A.‑G. and Abdul Samad for State. A case under section 10/11 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 stands registered against the petitioner and some others, with Police Station Saddar Chiniot. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. are that on 20‑4‑1987, the first informant alongwith his wife Mst. Sakina Bibi were coming towards their village. When they reached near Pindi Bhattian the petitioner alongwith others while armed with fire‑arms came and tied the hands of the first informant, and threw him in a pit after taking Rs.3,000 out of his pocket. Thereafter, they abducted first informant. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 20‑4‑1987 but the case was got registered on 23‑1‑1988. No explanation with regard to this delay has been given. Submits that the petitioner is the husband of Mst. Sakina Bibi, therefore, no offence as such has been committed by him. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. There is no explanation given by the first informant why he got the case registered with the delay of almost 9 months. I had enquired from the investigating officer who has admitted that during investigation the statement of Nikah Khawan was recorded0alleged abductee. In these circumstances, I feel the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. Therefore, he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Saddar Chinniot. N.H.Q./618‑L Bail granted.