1994 PLP 1802 (MLD)
SANAULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1802 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1802 (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 1994 PLP 1802 (MLD)?
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: 1994 PLP 1802 (MLD) (SANAULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 18/10
Delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. was not explained
Narration of facts given in the F.I.R. did not make it clear whether the accused actually attempted to commit Zina-bil-jabr or he only outraged the modesty of the girl
Case against accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry--Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No. 168/93, dated 4-6-1993, registered at Police Station Cantt. Gujranwala, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to commit Zina-bil-jabr with Mst. Razia Sultana complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the narration of facts given in the F.I.R. the offence under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979 is not made out. On the contrary, at the most, the case may fall under section 354, P.P.C. which is bailable by itself. The occurrence took place on 3-6-1993 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 4-6-1993 which delay remained unexplained; the petitioner is behind the bars since 4-8-1993 and uptil now no progress has been made in the case. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the foregoing submissions, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer, has opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 3-6-1993 and the matter was reported to the police on 4-6-1993 and this delay remained unexplained. From the narration of the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. it is not clear whether the petitioner actually attempted to commit Zina-bil-jabr or he only outraged the modest of the girl, so the case. against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to bail, hence the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Gujranwala. N.H.Q./5-477/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.