2007 PLP 254 (YLR)
IRFAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 254 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | IRFAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 254 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 254 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. A. Shahid Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 254 (YLR) (IRFAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. A. Hayat for Petitioner.
- 3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the facts stated in the F.I.R. do not constitute an offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, it is otherwise not supported by the medical evidence and that the delay in the registration of case makes, the prosecution's case highly doubtful.
- 4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The complainant happens to be a poor labourer. Unfortunately, it is most difficult for a man having no means to get a criminal case registered. Had the complainant fabricated a false story he could have easily given a date of his own choice in order to cover up the legal defects pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner. The facts of the case disclosed that the petitioner committed house breaking after making preparation for causing hurt and making criminal assault. Prima facie a case under section 455, P.P.C. is also made out against the petitioner, which entails punishment up to 10 years. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 18
Matter was reported to the police with a delay of about eighteen days, but as complainant happened to be a poor labourer, it was most difficult for a man having no means to get a criminal case registered
Had complainant fabricated a false story he could have easily given a date of his own choice in order to cover up the legal defects pointed out by counsel for accused
Facts of the case disclosed that accused had committed house breaking after making preparation for causing hurt and making criminal assault
Prima facie a case under S. 455, P.P.C. was also made out against accused which entailed punishment up to 10 years
Bail petition of accused was dismissed, in circumstances. Naseem Ullah Khan Niazi for the Complainant. Saleem Shad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.
Irfan Ali, petitioner has sought bail is case F.I.R. No.101 of 2006, dated 3-3-2006 Police Station, Chanab Nagar, District Jhang under sections 10/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station, Chanab Nagar, Chiniot District Jhang.
2. Mehboob Ahmad, complainant, is labourer by profession. On 13-2-2006 he had gone to work. His wife had also gone to Bazar and his daughter Abida Parveen aged 16/17 years was alone in her house at about 2-30 a.m. the petitioner while armed with Chhurri entered into the house of complainant by scaling over the wall. He caught hold of Abida Parveen, dragged her into the room and attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He also threatened to kill her in case she raised alarm. On the arrival of Arshad and Masood Ahmad, P.Ws., the petitioner decamped. Mehboob Ahmad, complainant, reported the matter to the police on 3-3-2006 with a delay of about eighteen days.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the facts stated in the F.I.R. do not constitute an offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, it is otherwise not supported by the medical evidence and that the delay in the registration of case makes, the prosecution's case highly doubtful.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The complainant happens to be a poor labourer. Unfortunately, it is most difficult for a man having no means to get a criminal case registered. Had the complainant fabricated a false story he could have easily given a date of his own choice in order to cover up the legal defects pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner. The facts of the case disclosed that the petitioner committed house breaking after making preparation for causing hurt and making criminal assault. Prima facie a case under section 455, P.P.C. is also made out against the petitioner, which entails punishment up to 10 years. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./I-62/L Bail refused.