1988 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal Karim, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal Karim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM MUSTAFA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accuses driving car in which alleged abduction attempted by co‑accused‑‑Accused having no relationship with co‑accused claiming to be taxi driver for taxi hired by co‑accused‑‑Question of guilt of accused, held, needed further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Jamshed Hayat for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 971/ B of 1986, decided on 2nd November, 1987. ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 18‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accuses driving car in which alleged abduction attempted by co‑accused‑‑Accused having no relationship with co‑accused claiming to be taxi driver for taxi hired by co‑accused‑‑Question of guilt of accused, held, needed further enquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Jamshed Hayat for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1987. The petitioner alongwith three others is an accused of abduction of Mst. Sharifan, aged about 8/9 years, Mst. Sharifan is the daughter of Shakoor, complainant. One of the accused, named, Zaffar, is a brother‑in‑law of Shakoor. It is stated that Zaffar wanted the hand of Mst. Sharifan and as the complainant did not agree to do so he tried to abduct Mst. Sharifan in a car. According to the F.I.R. Ghulam Mustafa petitioner was driving the car in which the abduction was attempted. He is not related to Zaffar. It also appears that the car belongs to one Abdul Ghaffar who had later taken it on Sepurdari. The petitioner's case is that his car was hired as a taxi and that he was not a party to the act of that abduction. The attempt of abduction was frustrated at the spot. In these circumstances, it appears that the question of the guilt of the petitioner is one of further enquiry. I would, therefore, allow the petitioner to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Illaqa Magistrate, Multan. S.A./G‑134/ L Bail allowed.