1987 PLP 2003 (MLD)
Mst. GUL BAHAR alias BAHARO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2003 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | Mst. GUL BAHAR alias BAHARO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2003 (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 1987 PLP 2003 (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: 1987 PLP 2003 (MLD) (Mst. GUL BAHAR alias BAHARO — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.13--Bail, grant of--Only general allegation of running brothel against accused--No specific incident or any witness deposing of any particular act--Investigation complete- -Challan submitted in Court--Prima facie application of S.13 of Ordinance, doubtful--Bail allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A case under section 13 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Gunjmandi, Rawalpindi, vide F.I.R. dated 4-5-1987. Allegation against the petitioner is that she has kept 3/4 young girls with the help of whom she is running a brothel house.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific allegation is levelled against the petitioner. It is further contended that the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is not required anymore. It is submitted that the petitioner being a lady is entitled to the concession of bail. Learned A.A.-G. has opposed the petition and has stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender, therefore, may not be granted the concession of bail.
3. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that general allegation is levelled against the petitioner. Neither any specific incident nor any witness who could depose about any particular act has been mentioned. I am informed by the learned Law Officer that the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted in Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation anymore. Prima facie application of section 13 of the said Ordinance is doubtful. In these circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Rawalpindi. S.A./G-62/L Bail allowed.