1993 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD LATIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Shakeel Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/11
F.I.R. was lodged after one month of the occurrence
Complainant had himself allowed his wife to go with the accused and after one month she herself had come to the complainant and was not recovered from accused
Medical evidence in respect of Zina at such stage could not be given much weight as she was a married woman and mother of two or three children
Judgment & Decree
Rana Shakeel Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State. Muhammad Latif, petitioner has sought his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.83/92 dated 12-4-1992 registered at Police Station Manawan, District Lahore under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for committing the Zina with Mst. Naseem Bibi wife of the complainant. It is alleged that on 12-4-1992 i.e. one month prior to the registration of the case the petitioner came to the house of the complainant Muhammad Akram and enticed away his wife Mst. Nascent Bibi from his house with the pretext to look after his ailing wife. The complainant waited for one month when his wife herself appeared and alleged that she was taken away by the petitioner and was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by him.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the delay of one month in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained and at the most the offence falls under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is also argued that it is a case of elopement and not of abduction and it was urged with vehemence that the period for more than five months has already elapsed since after the arrest of the petitioner but the challan has now been submitted in the Court.
3. Conversely, it has been argued on behalf of the State that there are allegations of Zina against the petitioner and, therefore, he did not deserve to be released on bail.
4. I have given my earnest consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides and have also gone through the record. Admittedly the F.I.R. in this case was lodged after one month of the occurrence of the petitioner taking away the wife of the complainant and it is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the complainant himself allowed his wife to go with the petitioner and after one month she herself came to the complainant and was not recovered from the petitioner. The medical evidence in respect of the abduction at this stage cannot be given much weight because she is admittedly a married woman and a mother of 2/3 children.
5. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Cantt./Illaqa Magistrate, Lahore. N.H.Q/M-715/L Bail allowed.