1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Roshan Ara for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11
Nikahnama allegedly binding the abductee and the accused in matrimonial alliance was neither produced before the Investigating officer, nor the Nikah Khawan was examined by the police-- Abductee in her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. had implicated. the accused-- Reasonable grounds, thus, existed to believe that accused were involved in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
M. Jahangir for the State. Date of hearing: 5th April, 1994. The petitioners who are involved in a case under section 10/11 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 arising out of F.I.R. No.509/93, dated 26-11-1993, registered at Police Station "B" Division, Kasur, seek to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith their co-accused abducted Mst. Zarina Bibi with the intention to commit Zina with her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Muhammad Afzal and Mst. Zarina Bibi married each other on 12-11-1993, hence they have not committed any offence under Hudood Ordinance. He has referred to unexplained delay of six days which makes the prosecution case further doubtful and also has relied upon the statement of Mst. Zarina Bibi made before the learned Ilaqa Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. thus the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail as their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application on the grounds that the petitioners have not produced the alleged Nikahnama before the Investigating Officer and the girl has made statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate wherein she has categorically implicated the petitioners as accused, so the case against them falls within the prohibitory clause and they are not entitled to bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot satisfy me with respect to the genuineness of Nikahnama on which she places reliance, as it was neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor the Nikah Khawan was examined by the police. In view of the statement of the girl A recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. prima facie, there exist reasonable ground to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. There is no merit in this bail application which is dismissed accordingly. N.H.Q./M-1690/L Bail refused.