1997 PLP 1257 (MLD)
AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1257 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1257 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1257 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1257 (MLD) (AKMAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Hussain Lughmani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.5/10
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.328/109
Only evidence against accused at bail stage was the statement of lady co-accused recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. which was admissible neither against her nor against the accused and could not form a basis for refusal of grant of bail to accused
Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
S. 161
Statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. is not admissible against its maker muchless against a co-accused.
Judgment & Decree
S. 161
Statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. is not admissible against its maker muchless against a co-accused. Munir Hussain Lughmani for Petitioner. Fawad Saleh for the State. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1996. On the basis of an anonymous diary that Mst. Naeema Kausar, an unmarried girl had become pregnant in village Qadar Abad Balakot, an enquiry was conducted under section 156(3), Cr.P.C. by the police concerned. An abandoned child was also recovered at some Adda. Whether such child was linked with Mst. Naeema Kausar, is a matter to be determined at trial yet she was medically examined and it was determined by the Doctor that she had delivered a baby.
2. A case under section 5/10 of Ordinance No. VII of 1979 read with section 328/109, P.P.C. was registered against the girl who stated before the police that this all was a result of her illicit cohabitation with one Akmal son of Bakht, a co-villager. The latter is arrested and refused bail by the forums below.
3. No doubt the offence falls heavy upon the moral and religious toboos always existing in the mind of every one yet one has to connect the accused with the commission of offence in accordance with law.
4. Until anything comes against the petitioner at trial the only evidence against him at this stage is the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of co -accused Mst. Naeema Kausar. The long and short of the matter is that such statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. is not even admissible against the very maker thereof, muchless, a co-accused. It is utterly inadmissible in evidence and should not even be recorded as a usual statement placed in "Nathi-Bey" of Police file. The correct way of alluding to such conversation with the accused is to mention the same in "Nathi-Alif" of Police diaries.
5. Simply because an accused is charged by a co-accused in his or her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, is no ground at all for refusing the concession of bail. The petitioner Akmal is directed to be released on bail provided a bail bond in a sum of Rs.70,000 with two local, reliable and resourceful sureties is furnished to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate alone. N.H.Q./205/P Bail granted.