1990 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 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 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11
Both the accused entered into wedlock before registration of case
Nikah was performed at a place other than the residence of parties
Nikahnama prima facie appeared to be manufactured for defence of the case
Case would fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was thus refused to male accused while the female accused was allowed bail for being woman.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha for Petitioners. Muhammad Iqbal for the State. Petitioners are seeking bail in the case registered, vide F.I.R. No.218 of 1-8-1988, under section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Kot Moman District Sargodha alleging abduction of the complainant's minor daughter Mst. Ismat alias Rehmo B petitioner No.2 by petitioner No.1, in the furtherance of illicit intimacy, which the latter had developed with the former.
2. It is contended that petitioners have entered into wedlock preceding registration of the case i.e. on 24-7-1988, of course against wishes of the complainant, thus no case is made out. 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail petition by submitting that petitioner No.2 being minor cannot contract valid marriage without the consent of her father which admittedly is lacking and that t both the petitioners had absconded for 6 months, consequently proceedings under t section 87, Cr.P.C. had to be initiated.
3. Perusal of the Nikahnama in question reveals that the alleged Nikah was performed at Lalian District Jhang, while the parties are residents of Chak Rawana Tchsil Bhalwal District Sargodha, which does not manifest normalcy of the events. Prima facie the alleged Nikahnama appears to have been manufactured at the instance of petitioner No. 1 with a view to putting up defence to the case his case falls within the prohibitory clause envisaged by section 497(1), Cr.P.C. therefore, is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently this petition to his extent is dismissed.
4. However, petitioner No.2 being a woman is allowed bail upon her furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Bhalwal. S.A./A-888/L Bail refused.