1988 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. HAYATAN (HAYAT BIBI)‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIANWALI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Mst. HAYATAN (HAYAT BIBI)‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIANWALI and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. HAYATAN (HAYAT BIBI)‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MIANWALI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amir Muhammad Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 11 & 16‑‑Surety, antecedents of‑‑Accused allowed bail‑‑Surety to be blood relation within prohibitory degree‑‑Bail bond directed to be executed by person, held, in high esteem in locality and antecendents of surety to be verified before accepting bail bond. Nasim Akhtar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1990 ref. Najamuz Zaman A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 11 & 16‑‑Surety, antecedents of‑‑Accused allowed bail‑‑Surety to be blood relation within prohibitory degree‑‑Bail bond directed to be executed by person, held, in high esteem in locality and antecendents of surety to be verified before accepting bail bond. Nasim Akhtar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1990 ref. Amir Muhammad Joya for Petitioner. Najamuz Zaman A.A.‑G. for the State. The petitioner is involved in a Hudood case alongwith the co‑accused Ghulam Muhammad. It is alleged that both had contracted marriage. It seems that the petitioner was abducted and then allegedly got married with Ghulam Muhammad. On the basis of these facts, a criminal case stands registered against the petitioner and Ghulam Muhammad. The complainant side has alleged that she was in fact the wife of one Muhammad Iqbal and not of Ghulam Muhammad. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage with Muhammad Iqbal was a concoction and a forged Nikahnama was prepared.
2. The petitioner was pregnant and was in jail and, therefore, she was released on bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the petitioner directed that she be released on bail subject to the condition that surety must be her close blood relation within the prohibitory degree.
3. Aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid condition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment reported as Nasim Akhtar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1990. In this judgment, it was laid down that in a Hudood case, if a person falling within the prohibitory degree is not available, then, surety should be such a person who is held in high esteem by the people of the locality where he lives and should not be in a position to coerce the woman to lead an immoral life. Respectfully, following the judgment cited, I would direct that in this case as well, if a person who is held in high esteem, in her locality and is produced by the petitioner as surety, then the execution of the bond by such person shall bell accepted towards the release of the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, I remand the case to the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, who shall before accepting the bond verify the antecedents of the surety in the light of the criteria referred to above. With these observations, this revision petition is allowed. S.A./H‑46/L Petition allowed.