1997 PLP 2553 (MLD)
MUNSHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2553 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUNSHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2553 (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 1997 PLP 2553 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2553 (MLD) (MUNSHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khurshid Ahmad Sodhi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th April, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Four days' delay in lodging the F.I.R. was not explained‑‑‑Medico‑legal report was in conflict with the assertion of the prosecutrix‑‑‑Case against accused required further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Four days' delay in lodging the F.I.R. was not explained‑‑‑Medico‑legal report was in conflict with the assertion of the prosecutrix‑‑‑Case against accused required further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Khurshid Ahmad Sodhi for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 10th April, 1995. Petitioner Munshi seeks bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station Garjakh, Gujranwala vide F.I.R. dated 28‑7‑1994 for an offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979. The case was got registered by Mst. Salma Bibi with the allegation that on 24‑7‑1994 at about 2‑30 Noon she after doing day's work as a maid servant came and sat in a room on the upper storey of the house. In the meanwhile, petitioner with his two co‑accused came from the adjoining roof of the house and after bolting the door from inside the petitioner raped the first informant whereas his co‑accused Kalu kept a pistol on the temple of the first informant. In the meanwhile, Mst. Zainab, mother of the first informant, came, whereupon the petitioner with his two co‑accused ran away.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was got registered with an unexplained delay of four days which casts serious doubt. Argued that according to the report of the lady doctor, who initially examined the first informant, rape was not committed on her as the hymen was found in‑; tact. Asserted that the report of the Chemical Examiner may not be of much significance because vaginal swabs were taken five days after the occurrence. The contentions were opposed by learned Assistant Advocate‑General.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. There is no explanation available why the case was got registered with a delay of four days. Medico‑legal report of the lady doctor, who examined the prosecutrix makes it a case of further inquiry. The medico‑legal report is in conflict with the assertion of the prosecutrix. In these circumstances, the application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala. N.H.Q./M‑2544/L Bail allowed.