2000 PLP 94 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 94 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 94 (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 2000 PLP 94 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 94 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner Bashir Ahmad Baig for the State.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑At time of lodging F.I.R. complainant who was husband of co‑accused had thought that his wife/co‑accused had been abducted by accused, but during course of investigation it transpired that his wife/co‑accused had developed illicit relations with accused and had voluntarily eloped with him‑‑‑Accused had not been able to offer any reasonable explanation as to why he should have been falsely implicated in the case‑‑‑Conduct of accused was not such which could entitle him to concession of bail. Mst. Wazeeran and others v. State 1987 MLD 1202 and Muhammad Saleem Ullah v. State 1993 PCr.LJ 1533 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑At time of lodging F.I.R. complainant who was husband of co‑accused had thought that his wife/co‑accused had been abducted by accused, but during course of investigation it transpired that his wife/co‑accused had developed illicit relations with accused and had voluntarily eloped with him‑‑‑Accused had not been able to offer any reasonable explanation as to why he should have been falsely implicated in the case‑‑‑Conduct of accused was not such which could entitle him to concession of bail. Mst. Wazeeran and others v. State 1987 MLD 1202 and Muhammad Saleem Ullah v. State 1993 PCr.LJ 1533 ref. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioner Bashir Ahmad Baig for the State. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1997. It is not denied that Mst. Kaniz Fatima is a legally wedded wife of Ghulam Rasool complainant. At the time of lodging of the F.I.R. it had been thought that she had been abducted by Ramzan petitioner and others but during the course of investigation it transpired that she had developed illicit relations with Ramzan petitioner and had voluntarily eloped with him. Kaniz Fatima has since been arraigned as an accused person in the said case.
2. The learned counsel has not been able to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the petitioner should have been falsely implicated in the present case. The conduct of the petitioner is not such which. could entitle him to the concession of bail. The learned counsel placed reliance on Mst. Wazeeran etc. v. State (1987 MLD 1202) and Muhammad Saleem Ullah v. State (1993 PCr. LJ 1533). Dismissed. H.B.T./R.786/L