1994 P Cr (PLP)
SANAULI.AH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SANAULI.AH — Petitioner 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) (SANAULI.AH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11/16
Allegation against accused was only of reduction
Mere absconsion could not be made sole basis of refusal of bail in circumstances
Trial had not yet commenced
Accused was behind the bars since long and his continued incarceration could not serve any purpose-- Conduct of the abductee of not being a consenting party was yet to be determined during the trial
Three co-accused had been declared innocent by Investigating Officer
Judgment & Decree
Iftikhar Ahmad Butt for Petitioner. Asghar Ahmad Kharal for the State. Date of hearing: 17th August, 1994. A case under sections 10/11 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 was registered with the Police Station Gogera, District Okara, on the statement of Ameer Ali alleging that Muhammad Ali son of Hasta and Muhammad son of Hamid Ali had seen his nieces Allah Rakhi, 15 and Noor Bakhi, 11 in company of Sanaullah petitioner and his accomplices Liaquat Ali and others. Subsequently Allah Rakhi in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. blamed the petitioner and others for her abduction. She, however, admitted that the petitioner had not raped her and only co-accused Liaquat Ali had made and abortive attempt. Thus, only allegation against the petitioner is of abduction. The petitioner is behind the bars since considerable period that is the 13th of February, 1994.
3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail only on the ground of absconsion of the petitioner after the occurrence.
4. Mere absconsion cannot be made sole basis of refusal of relief of the bail. The trial has not yet commenced, though the challan is complete and is lying in prosecution branch for scrutiny. The petitioner is behind the bars since long and his continued incarceration would not serve the purpose. It is also yet to be determined during the trial if the abductee was not a consenting party. Some of the co-accused, namely, Mushtaq Azam and Amna Bibi had been declared innocent by the Investigating Officer.
5. In view of all the factors taken into consideration I accept the petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of C Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. N.H.Q./S-526/L Bail granted.