1989 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YUNUS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ehtesham Qadir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. was lodged twenty‑four hours after occurrence and no reasonable explanation had been offered for delay‑‑Accused, arrested on very day the case was registered and was in jail for the last more than eight months‑ -Accused admitted to bail. Javaid v. The State 1985 S C M R 1443 ref. Muhammad Ibrahim for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Javaid v. The State 1985 S C M R 1443 ref. Syed Ehtesham Qadir for Petitioner. Muhammad Ibrahim for the State. Muhammad Yunus petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Article 18 of Ordinance VII, 1979.
2. The prosecution version is that on 28th May, 1988 at 10 a.m. Mst. Kausar Parveen was returning home after purchasing some vegetables. When she reached near the house of the petitioner he held her by her arm and forcibly took her inside the house where he put his hand on her Azarband and felled her on the ground. She held her Azarband firmly and raised alarm attracting Bashir Ahmad and Saleh Muhammad. On seeing them, the petitioner decamped through the roofs of the houses. Mst. Kausar Parveen reported the occurrence on the following day at 9‑30 a.m.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of twenty‑four hours in reporting the occurrence and on the facts stated in the F.I.R., at best, a case under section 354, P.P.C. is made out. In support of the contention he has relied on Javaid v. The State 1985 S C M R 1443 Shariat Appellate Bench. The learned State counsel does not oppose the prayer.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. The F. I. R. was lodged twenty‑four hours after the occurrence and no reasonable explanation has been offered for the delay. The petitioner was arrested on the very day the case A was registered and is in jail for the last more than eight months. In the circumstances, I admit hint to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal. H.B.T./M‑1129/L Bail granted.