2005 PLP 3181 (YLR)
GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3181 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J |
| Parties | GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3181 (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 2005 PLP 3181 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3181 (YLR) (GHULAM AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarwar Usman Khosa for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16
Accused was behind the bars for the last more than one year
All co-accused had already been released on bail
Challan had been submitted in the Court
Further detention of accused in jail would serve no useful purpose
Case against accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Co-accused having been granted bail, accused was also entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of consistency
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Munir Ahmed v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 91 and Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. The State 2005 YLR 693 ref. Altaf Hussain Bokhari for the State Bashir Ahmad, S.-I. with Record
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.
Ghulam Akbar, petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.83 of 2004 dated 6-3-2004 registered under sections 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) at Police Station, Dajal District, Rajanpur.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he along with his co-accused abducted the wife of complainant Allah Ditta.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of fifteen days in lodging the F.I.R. That the abductee has negated the prosecution story. That no Medico-Legal Certificate of the alleged abductee regarding commission of Zina regarding rape exists "on the record. That all the co-accused namely Mithoo, Ghulam Sarwar, Bashir Ahmad, Mst. Aasho have already been granted bail from the learned trial Court. Further submits that investigation has been completed. Challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of investigation and case against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. He has relied on "Munir Ahmed v. The State" 1997 PCr.LJ 91 and "Mst. Bashiran Bibi v. The State" 2005 YLR 693.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is behind the bars since 7-6-2004. Pre-arrest bail of Mithoo and Bashir Ahmad co-accused were confirmed vide orders dated 31-3-2004 and 15-9-2004 respectively while Ghulam Sarwar and Mst. Aasho Mai were granted post-arrest bails vide orders dated 15-9-2004 and 2-12-2004 respectively. Challan in the case was submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 30-6.2004 and further detention of petitioner would serve no purpose and case against the petitioner also does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the co-accused have already been granted bails from the learned trial Court and under the rule of consistency too the petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail.
6. For what has been discussed above petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./G-131/L Bail allowed.