2007 PLP 388 (YLR)
Maulvi HANIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 388 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | Maulvi HANIF — 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 388 (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 388 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 388 (YLR) (Maulvi HANIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazhar H. Tahir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18
Complainant and also eye-witnesses had sworn affidavits to the effect that they were convinced about the innocence of accused and that incident had not been witnessed by them with their own eyes
Accused was an elderly man of 65 years and there was no criminal record against him
Contention of accused that one of rivals of accused who was running a general store in front of shop of accused, had attempted to falsely involve accused on account of business rivalry coupled with Me factum of affidavits having been sworn by complainant and his witnesses, had some substance
Submissions of those affidavits made the case of accused open to further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. and culpability of accused was to be determined at the time of trial
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Saifullah Khalid for the State. Irshad Ahmad, A.S.-I., Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala with police file.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Maulvi Hanif son of Muhammad Munshi petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.496 dated 2-9-2004 for offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala.
2. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the F.I.R. recorded at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Siddique was that the petitioner runs a general store in the Mohallah; on 2-9-2004 at 12-30 p.m. his daughter Iqra aged 9/10 years had gone to the said shop; that the petitioner cajoled the child and took her behind the backside of the shop and 'tried to ravish her; the cries of the child attracted Muhammad Iqbal Butt, Muhammad Rasheed, Malik Zaheer and Muhammad Mushtaq who were passing through the lane; they found the shalwars of both the petitioner and the child removed and saw that the petitioner was trying to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her, that the petitioner was overpowered by the witnesses. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on the same day i.e. 2-9-2004 and is in custody eversince. His application for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide his order dated 21-9-2004. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Mazhar H. Tahir, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Saifullah Khalid, the learned State Counsel and have perused the record brought by Irshad Ahmad, A.S.I., Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala.
5. It has been observed that the complainant of the case and also the eye-witnesses had sworn affidavits, which are available on the record, to the effect that they had been convinced about the innocence of the petitioner and that the incident had not been witnessed by them with their own eyes. It is not denied that the petitioner is an elderly man of 65 years and there is no criminal record against him. The contention of the learned counsel that one of his rivals namely Musthaq Gujjar who runs a general store in front of petitioner's shop has attempted to falsely involve the petitioner on account of business rivalry coupled with the factum of affidavits having been sworn by the complainant and his witnesses, has some substance. The submissions of these affidavits made the case of the petitioner open to further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the culpability of the petitioner is to be determined at the time of trial.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./H-9/L Bail granted.