2007 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias MUNAWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias MUNAWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 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 2007 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: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias MUNAWAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chouhan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/18
F.I.R. had been delayed for 18 days without any explanation
Accused had been declared innocent in investigation conducted by D.S.P.
Whether the offence would fall under S.18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 or under S.354, P.P.C. would be determined with certainty at trial
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.13, dated 22-1-2006 registered under sections 10/18. of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang on the grounds that F.I.R. was sufficiently delayed without any explanation rendered by the complainant; that the petitioner was declared innocent in investigation; that the case is of an attempt to commit Offence of Zina and the ingredients required under section 18 of the aforesaid Ordinance have not been fulfilled calling for further inquiry.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail and submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, thus, he was not entitled to any concession.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The occurrence took place on 4-1-2006. It was allegedly reported on 22-1-2006. No plausible explanation has been given for the delay: The petitioner has been declared innocent in the investigation conducted by the D.S.P. Whether the offence falls under section 18 of the Ordinance or section 354, P.P.C. will be determined with certainty at trial. The petitioner has made out of a case for the grant of bail.
5. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./M-345/L Bail allowed.