2003 PLP 398 (MLD)
UMAR HAYAT‑‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 398 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | UMAR HAYAT‑‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 398 (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 2003 PLP 398 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 398 (MLD) (UMAR HAYAT‑‑ ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 4th October, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 16‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case was registered against five accused persons and out of them four had been allowed bail‑‑‑Accused remained on physical remand for 14 days, but alleged abductee was not recovered‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by detaining said accused further, when offence alleged against him did not fall within ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 1982 PCr.LJ 1192; 1984, PCr.LJ 675 and KLR 1999 Criminal Cases 534 ref. Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch and Abdul Qayyum for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.11 & 16‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case was registered against five accused persons and out of them four had been allowed bail‑‑‑Accused remained on physical remand for 14 days, but alleged abductee was not recovered‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by detaining said accused further, when offence alleged against him did not fall within ambit of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 1982 PCr.LJ 1192; 1984, PCr.LJ 675 and KLR 1999 Criminal Cases 534 ref. Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch and Abdul Qayyum for the State. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that petitioner was arrested in this case on 23‑1‑2002, that he remained on physical remand but the alleged abductee was not recovered. He has relied upon 1982 PCr.LJ 1192; 1984 PCr.LJ 675; KLR 1998 & 1999 36 & 534.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that challan has been submitted in the trial Court, that petitioner has been found guilty, and that in fact it is not a case of section 16 but 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Case was registered against five accused, four have been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As far as, present petitioner is concerned, he remained on physical remand for 14 days but the abductee was not recovered and for the reason best known to the Investigating Officer that he did not effect the recovery of abductee which is still not available. No useful purpose can be served by detaining the present petitioner further, even offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if and when the alleged abductee is recovered and she levelled allegation of Zina against the petitioner then either the State or the complainant can move for cancellation of bail. H.B.T./U‑42/L Bail granted.