1986 PLP 1834 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD alias MAMMI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1834 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD alias MAMMI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1834 (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 1986 PLP 1834 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1834 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD alias MAMMI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail‑‑No allegation of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr against accused‑‑Offence under S.16 of Ordinance VII of 1979, not falling within prohibitory clause of 5.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Accused admitted to bail. C.M. Latif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 16‑‑Bail‑‑No allegation of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr against accused‑‑Offence under S.16 of Ordinance VII of 1979, not falling within prohibitory clause of 5.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Accused admitted to bail. Ch. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner. C.M. Latif for the State. Muhammad alias Mammi petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and another under Articles 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The petitioner is the maternal‑cousin of Shameer complainant. The prosecution version is that six or seven days prior to 14th May, 1986 the petitioner took away Mst. Jindan, wife of the complainant, with complainant's permission. She did not return till evening. The complainant searched for her and during the course he was informed by Amir and Farid that she was going in the company of the petitioner and co‑accused Saeed Ahmed. The complainant then reported the occurrence to the police on 14th May, 1986. On 14th May, 1986 Mst. Jindan made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein she alleged that the petitioner and his co‑accused took her to Jhang from where the petitioner slipped away and his co‑accused Saeedu took her to Samundari where he kept her for 10/12 days. From there he was taking her to some other place but on the way she raised alarm and the police apprehended her and aforesaid Saeedu. She further alleged that Saeedu had ravished her thrice.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no allegation of Zina or Zina‑bil‑Jabr against the petitioner. The offence under Article 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) A Ordinance, 1979, does not fall within the propitiatory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction Of, Assistant Commissioner, Jhang. M.Y.H Bail granted.