2022 PLP 169 (MLD)
The STATE — Petitioner Versus ZAHID and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 169 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | The STATE — Petitioner Versus ZAHID and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 169 (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 2022 PLP 169 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 169 (MLD) (The STATE — Petitioner Versus ZAHID and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Deputy Advocate-General for the State/Petitioner.
- 3. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State contended that the impugned order passed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of this case as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G. further contended that the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit has passed the impugned order unheard as the D.P.P has not advanced his arguments before the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A, 504, 34 & 354-A
Shajjah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, common intention, assault or criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes
Scope
Allegation against accused persons was that they slapped the sister of complainant and by using abusive language also removed her chaddar
Sections 337-A & 504, P.P.C., were bailable
Section 354-A, P.P.C., was not prima facie attracted to the case
Section 354-A, P.P.C., provided that to attract the provisions of the section, two conditions must be fulfilled: Firstly, there should be stripping of clothes and secondly the victim in that condition be exposed to the public view
To attract the provisions of the section both the conditions must co-exist
Sessions Judge had rightly granted bail to the accused persons
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
Through the instant application filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, the petitioner/State has sought cancellation of bail order dated 21-04-2020 passed by the learned vacation Sessions judge Gilgit.
2. Briefly allegations against the accused/respondents as disclosed in the FIR are that the accused/respondents have slapped the sister of complainant namely Khurshida on 11-04-2020 and by using abusive language against her the accused/respondents have also removed Chaddar of the victim from her head.
3. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State contended that the impugned order passed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of this case as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G. further contended that the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit has passed the impugned order unheard as the D.P.P has not advanced his arguments before the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit.
4. I have heard the learned Dy.A.G. and perused the record thoroughly.
5. Admittedly, Sections 337-A and 504, P.P.C. are bailable as far as Section 354-A, P.P.C., is concerned the allegations contained in the FIR lodged at the behest of complainant prima facie does not attract the provisions of Section 354-A, P.P.C.
6. Plain reading of aforesaid provisions would reveal that to attract the said provisions of this section, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, there should be striping of clothes and secondly the victim in that condition be exposed to the public view. To attract the provisions of this Sher Zaman v. The State 2007 YLR 3160 section both the said conditions must co-exist. In the instant case according to the complainant the accused/petitioners removed the Chaddar from the head of the victim and secondly the next pre-condition from the application of Section 354-A, P.P.C. regarding exposure of the victim to the public at large prima facie is also missing. Thus Section 354-A, P.P.C. does not attract to the case in hand. Hence the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit has rightly granted bail to the accused/petitioners as remaining sections i.e. sections 337 and 504/34, P.P.C. are bailable.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limine.
8. Petition dismissed accordingly. File. SA/112/GB Petition dismissed.