2007L1229 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007L1229 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007L1229 (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 2007L1229 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007L1229 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.D. Naseem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380
Bali, grant of
F.I.R. had been registered after a delay of 7-1/2 months
Matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife existed and a suit for dissolution of marriage was pending
Whole family had been roped in the case with mala fide intention by the complainant
No evidence of abduction of the alleged abductee was available on record
Grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of accused within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C., thus, were present
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Farid Sulahry, Abid for the State. Muhammad Zafar, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.
Muhammad Saddique, petitioner, seeks bail after arrest in case registered against him and other co-accused vide F.I. R. No.641 dated 28-12-2002, for offences under sections 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 380 P.P.C. at P.S. Kotwali, Jhang, registered on the complaint of Muhammad Ramzan son of Khair Muhammad.
2. Muhammad Ramzan married Mst. Asia Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi. Out of the wedlock daughters were born. It is alleged that she has eloped with the accused petitioner for committing zinc. Petitioner applied for bail after arrest before the learned Additional Session Judge which has been declined. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and a suit for dissolution of marriage has been filed against Muhammad Ramzan by Mst. Asia Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi and due to this grudge, the whole family has been roped in this case; that there is delay of about 7-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. ; that there is no evidence of abduction or zinc and in this view of the matter, provisions of section 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood). Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence but there are reasonable grounds of further inquiry into the .guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that two persons namely Umar Hayat son of Inayat and Saeed son of Sultan had seen Mst. Asia Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi being eloped -with the accused, therefore he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. There is delay of about 7-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R. Admittedly, there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for dissolution of marriage was pending, the whole family has been roped in the case with mala fide intention. There is no evidence of abduction in this case. Therefore, provisions of section 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are no attracted. Therefore, it is concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been charged for but there are grounds far further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-251/L Bail allowed.