1989 P Cr (PLP)
CHANNAN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aslam Mian, J |
| Parties | CHANNAN‑‑Appellant 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 Aslam Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (CHANNAN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Prosecutrix in F.I.R. lodged by her against accused categorically stated that accused had committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her‑ Contentions of accused that at the worst, the case against him was that of elopement as complainant was a lady of easy virtue; that there was no marks of violence on her person when she was medically examined and that two witnesses stated that they knew nothing about occurrence, held, travelled beyond scope of tentative assessment of offence‑‑Alleged offence admittedly falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., bail was refused. Mian Mushtaq for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Mushtaq for the State. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1988. This is an application for grant of bail to Channan, petitioner in case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Mustafa Abad vide F.I.R. No. 206, dated 10‑8‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others deceitfully took away Mst. Bashiran Bibi complainant and not only induced her to marry Channan, petitioner but also subjected her to Zina‑bil‑Jabr.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the worst it is a case of elopement; that the complainant is a lady of easy virtue; that there were no marks of violence on her person when she was legally examined; that the challan has not been submitted; that two witnesses namely Bashir Ahmad and Nazir Ahmad have stated in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. that they knew nothing about the occurrence. Learned counsel for the State, has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that Mst. Bashiran Bibi in the F.I.R. lodged by her has categorically stated that the petitioner had committed Zina‑bil‑jabr with her; that the submissions made by the learned counsel travel beyond the scope off tentative assessment; that the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been said above, there being no merit the petition is dismissed.
6. The Investigating Officer is however, directed to submit challan within 15 days from the date of this order. In case the challan is not submitted within 15 days, the petitioner may repeat his application. H.B.T./C‑28/L Petition dismissed.