YLR 2006

2006 PLP 1859 (YLR)

AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Cr1. Miscellaneous No.3549-B of 2005, decided on 15th December, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 1859 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J
Parties AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1859 (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 2006 PLP 1859 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1859 (YLR) (AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Abid Hussain Bhutta for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10, 13 & 14

Bail, grant of

Matter was reported to police after a delay of more than 1-1/2 years

Accused claimed himself to be husband of complainant

Complainant lived with accused in his house for the last about 1-1/2 years and it was not plausible that during such a long period, complainant never got an opportunity to escape or to protest

Accused was admitted to bail. M. Sabir Qureshi for the State with Imtiaz, A.S.-I.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.

Ayub, petitioner, has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.133 of 2004, registered at Police Station City, Rajanpur on 29-5-2004 for an offence under sections 10/13/14/7 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. The relevant facts- as per F.I.R. are; that the complainant was turned out of her house by her husband Muhammad Anwar. Her uncle Mukhtar sold the complainant for Rs.60,000 to an unknown lady who took the complainant to the house of Hazoor Bakhsh Mochi and left after selling the complainant to said Hazoor Bakhsh. Thereafter, the complainant was forced to enter into Nikah with Ayub, petitioner, son of Hazoor Bakhsh who had been committing zina with the complainant. The complainant was returned to her relatives after about 1-1/2 years.

3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 31-8-2004 and is in jail since then.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of more than 1-1/2 years; the petitioner claims himself to be husband of the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant lived with the petitioner in his house for about 1-1/2 years. It is not plausible that during such a long period she never got an opportunity to escape or to protest. In the circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-2/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.