2013 PLP 431 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 431 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 431 (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 2013 PLP 431 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 431 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Mati Ullah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-B
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage etc.
Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and occurrence was reported to the police after a delay of sixteen days
Alleged abduction remained incomplete and the chastity of the victim remained intact
Circumstances available on record made out a case for further inquiry
Bail petition of accused was accepted and accused was admitted to bail. Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi for the Complainant. Noor Ahmed Bhatti, DPP for the State. Abdul Rehman, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.
On the night falling in between 29/30-7-2011 when Mst. Sumera Bibi alleged victim was asleep in her house along with her family members, at about 12-15 a.m. (night) Muhammad Asif along with an unacquainted person after having entered the house forcibly abducted her but on the way on account of slipping as the rain had fallen she could not be abducted by the accused mentioned in the F.I.R.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; that the delay appears to have been taken place about sixteen days in lodging the matter to the police without its perspicuity; that in the addendum statement no source has been given by the complainant and at the maximum it was an attempt to abduct, therefore, the circumstances available on the record prima facie constitute a case for the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned DPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application by submitting that indubitably the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but nothing has been brought on the record either before the Investigating Officer or before this court during the arguments that the petitioner has been spitefully involved on account of some malice or enmity. Learned counsel submits that the alleged victim has named the petitioner as a person who participated in the commission of crime and her sole statement is sufficient to connect him with the commission of crime, thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., despite the matter was reported to the police after sixteen days, according to prosecution's own case the alleged occurrence remained incomplete and the chastity of the victim was not shattered. The circumstances, available on the record prima facie make out a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. MWA/M-50/L Bail granted.