1986 P Cr (PLP)
IQBAL SANAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khizar Hayat, J |
| Parties | IQBAL SANAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khizar Hayat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (IQBAL SANAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Insaf Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 1G to 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Alleged abductee making varying statements at different times, sometime absolving petitioner and sometimes implicating him‑‑Case, held, was that of further, inquiry, in circumstances‑‑Petitioner awed bail. Munir Fatimi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Insaf Bhatti for Petitioner. Munir Fatimi for the State. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1984. This is a petition for bail on behalf of Iqbal Sanam who stands arrested in a case registered against him and his relatives under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Mumtazabad.
2. According to the prosecution complainant Muhammad Usman father of Mst. Yasmin abductee in this case lived in a house owned by Iqbal Sanam petitioner. On the night between 26/27‑2‑1984, Mst. Yasmin disappeared from her house. Her father was informed at Karachi who came to Multan and lodged report on 27‑2‑1984 at Police Station Mumtazabad. It is alleged that Mat. Yasmin applied to a Magistrate 1st Class on 17‑3‑1984 that she was being tortured by her step‑mother, therefore, she be sent to Darul Aman till her father arrives from Karachi. Hardly her statement was over when she was taken by the police. It appears that on 19‑3‑1984 she sworn an affidavit before an Oath Commissioner which was subsequently counter signed by the Magistrate to .the effect that she was not abducted by anybody and that the present case lodged by her father was not based on true facts. However, on 22‑3‑1984 she was produced before a Magistrate for recording her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she averred that she was raped forcibly and threatened by the petitioner that if she disclosed this fact to any body else the petitioner would harm her parents.
3. During the investigation the petitioner was arrested and is presently lodged in jail. It is also admitted position that Mat. Yasmin has not been made co‑accused in the case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the State and also perused the record.
5. It appears that Mst. Yasmin abductee has made varying statement at different times, sometime absolving the petitioner and sometimes implicating him which shows her vacillating conduct, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty at this stage as to which statement should she stick to at the time of the trial. In the circumstances, I find that the case of the petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry as to the guilt or otherwise of the, petitioner. Resultantly this petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Multan. S.G.D. Bail allowed.