2006 PLP 624 (MLD)
Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 624 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 624 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 624 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 624 (MLD) (Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Peer Masood-ul-Hassan Chishti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12
Delay of three days in lodging F.I.R., had not been explained and victim was examined three days after the alleged occurrence
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than five months without a trial
Case against accused was of further inquiry
Besides, in the circumstances narrated in F.I.R., it would also have to be seen as to whether a case under S.12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was made out
Accused was granted bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 15-6-2004 at 8-30 p.m. Abdul Rehman complainant laid information at Police Station New Multan, District Multan, that Muhammad Aslam is his friend who used to visit Multan frequently and then somehow he kept his residence with him. On the night between 12/13-6-2004 Muhammad Aslam was asleep with him. At about 3-00 a.m. he heard his son crying. He along.with his brother Abdul Sattar went to the drawing room and found the petitioner sodomizing his son. On their hue and cry, Muhammad Aslam ran away. A case under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.437. The petitioner' was arrested on 12-7-2005. His bail application has been dismissed by a learned ASJ, Multan, on 18-9-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the sole reliance has been placed by the learned ASJ on the report of the Chemical Examiner which is highly doubtful as admittedly the alleged victim was examined three days after the alleged occurrence. He also states that the case has been got registered mala tide as there was some money dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
3. I have gone through the available records. I find that there is a delay of three days in the lodging of the first report. There is no explanation. There is no denial that the victim was examined three days after the alleged occurrence. Besides, the petitioner stands incarcerated since the last more than five months without a trial. To my mind in the said circumstances, it is certainly a case of further inquiry. Besides, in A the circumstances narrated in the F.I.R., it will also have to be seen as to whether a case under section 12 of the said Ordinance is made out. The criminal miscellaneous is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.One Lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-58/L??????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.