1987 PLP 2682 (MLD)
TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2682 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhmmad Munir Khan, |
| Parties | TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2682 (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 1987 PLP 2682 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhmmad Munir Khan,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2682 (MLD) (TALIB HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/11--Bail, grant of--First information report lodged with a delay of two month s--Co-accused whose case was identical with that of accused already on bail--Accused admitted to bail in circumstances. Ashraf Bokhari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for Petitioner. Ashraf Bokhari for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Talib Hussain petitioner in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadbd'd) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Samundari, vide FIR No.283 dated 21-8-1984.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 11 others abducted Mst. Rukhsana and Mst. Farzana, the daughters of Nazir Ahmad on 24-6-1984 and thereafter, committed Zina-bil-Jabar with them. As far the petitioner it has been alleged that he not only abducted two girls but also committed Zina-bil-Jabar with Mst. Rukhsana.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 11 co-accused are on bail and that the petitioner was not a proclaimed offender. Conversely, the 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 feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is a delay of two months in lodging the FIR; that the 11 co-accused whose case is identical with that of the petitioner are already on bail; that the DSP. Karachi has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner/ Head Constable Talib Hussain remained on duty till 8-1-1987 which prima facie shows that he was not an absconder.
5. For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. He, is B therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Samundari. M.Y.H/T-20/L Bail granted.