1995 PLP 582 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AZAM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 582 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 582 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 582 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 582 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AZAM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/13/14‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation that all the accused committed Zina with the woman turn by turn when the witnesses were present outside the house whose doors were open appeared to be absurd‑‑‑Mere recovery of Rs.500 from the woman did not necessarily mean that she had been sent for by the accused for the purpose of Zina‑‑‑Facts narrated' in the F.I.R. did not constitute an offence under S.14 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Further inquiry, therefore, was needed into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused accordingly. Bashir Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners seek bail in a case F.I.R. No. 154 of 1994 dated 25‑5‑1994 registered under sections 1.0, 13 and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at P.S. Makhdoom Rashid, District Multan.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioners committed Zina with Mst. Kalsoom alias Razia inside the house in the presence of the complainant, Muhammad Ramzan, and other witnesses. They were apprehended on the spot. Mst. Kalsoom alias Razia told the witnesses that she was sent for by Allah Ditta, petitioner No.3, for the purpose of Zina.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
4. The allegation that all the petitioners committed Zina with Mst. Kalsoom alias Razia turn by turn when the witnesses were present outside the house whose doors were also open appears to be absurd. The mere fact that an I 'amount of Rs.500 was recovered from the possession of Mst. Kalsoom alias Razia did not necessarily mean that she was sent for by Allah Ditta, petitioner No.3, for the purpose of Zina. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. do not constitute an offence under section 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. Therefore, further inquiry is needed into the guilt of the petitioners. In view of the above, the petitioners are allowed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Multan. It may be observed that the learned trial Court while deciding the matter shall not be influenced by the observations made in this order. N.H.Q./M‑1911/L Bail allowed.