2007 PLP 3134 (YLR)
IRFAN IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3134 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J |
| Parties | IRFAN IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3134 (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 2007 PLP 3134 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Khalid Alvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3134 (YLR) (IRFAN IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.16/10--Bail, grant of
F.I.R. had indicated that the alleged abductee had prima facie, left her house on her own accord and she could not be said at such stage to have been abducted by the accused
Reasons for. leaving the house by the abductee were not available an record
Keeping the accused behind the bars would not advance the case of the complainant for the recovery of the alleged abductee, because definitely she was not in their custody, who were in jail
Accused were allowed bail in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and Mian Muhammad Akram for the Petitioner. Rao Atif Nawaz for the State. Mian Qamar-ud-Din Safeer for the Complainant. Alain Sher, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
Through this single order I propose to `dispose of Crl: Misc. No-2751-B of 2005 and Crl. Misc. No-2896-B of 2005 as both the petitions arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. Petitioners in both the cases seek Post-Arrest, Bail in case F.I.R. No.217/2005 dated 3-7-2005 under sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Mitroo District Vehari.
3. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. are that Mst. Fiaz Bibi accused was on visiting terms with the complainant Muhammad Luqman. During this time, she was instrumental in developing illicit relations between the wife of the complainant Mst. Ansar Bibi and Irfan Iqbal petitioner. On 26-6-2005 the said accused Mst. Fiaz Bibi visited the house of the complainant during his absence and arranged a meeting of Mst. Ansar Bibi with Irfan Iqbal. At 11-00 P.M, on the same date, a car stopped at the door of the complainant. On hearing the noise of the car P.Ws. Tariq and Khuda Bakhsh, who were sleeping on the roof of their houses they saw Mst. Ansar Bibi sitting in the car wherein Irfan Iqbal, Fiaz Bibi, Muhammad Javaid and Inayat were already present.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a delay of seven days in the registration of the case; that .according to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. the case is not one of abduction rather is one of elopement; that the petitioners were declared innocent by the Investigating Officer, which was verified by the D.S.P. However, the learned Magistrate did not agree with the discharge report; that the petitioners are behind the bar since 14-7-2005; that the person of the petitioners is no more required by the police for any further investigation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed these applications. However, the state of investigation as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not denied. It is next argued that the abductee has not yet been recovered.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that prima facie, it appears that Mst. Ansar Bibi had left, her house on her own accord, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that she was abducted by the petitioners. The reasons of her leaving the house are also not available, on record. Keeping the petitioners behind the bars would not advance the case of the complainant for the recovery of alleged abductee because definitely she is not in the custody of present petitioners, who are in jail. Under these circumstances, both these applications are allowed. The petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. N.H.Q./I-128/L Bail granted.