1983 P Cr (PLP)
GAMAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | GAMAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑e‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (GAMAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑
S. 497‑Alleged abductee and victim of rape completely denying allegation of her abduction ‑ No other tangible evidence regarding commission of offence of Zina or abduction‑Bail allowed, in circumstances. M. Sharif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was reported against vide F. I. R. No. 184/82 Police Station Kanganpur on 24th September, 1982 under section 16 of
Ordi nance V11 of 1979. During the investigation however, sections 10 and 11 of the Ordinance were also added and the alleged abductee Mst. Zohra Bibi was also made a co‑accused.
2. There was previously a writ petition filed by Mst. Zohra Bibi being W. P. No. 4034/82 challening this very F. I. R. The statement of the girl was recorded by the Investigating Officer in which she completely denied the allegation of abduction and did not support the F. I. R. version.
3. There is no tangible evidence with the prosecution according to the Investigating Officer regarding the commission of the offence of Zina or abduction. As the position stands today, therefore, I am of the view, that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. He is accordingly admit ted to bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Kasur.
4. The A. S. I. states that his absence on the last date was not wilful because he did not receive the communication from the High Court and when the record had been produced he was already out of station on investigation. His absence, therefore, not being deliberate, no action against him is called for. S.G.D. Bail granted.