2000 PLP 2536 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑-‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2536 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑-‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2536 (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 2000 PLP 2536 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2536 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑-‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.18‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Unexplained delay of three days was noticed in lodging of F.I.R., and prosecution story as narrated in the F.I. R., was also not convincing‑‑‑Accused was confined in judicial lock‑up for the last more than ten months‑‑‑One of prosecution witnesses named in F.I.R. had not supported the prosecution story‑‑‑Investigation was completed and person of accused was not required by police for any purpose‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2445; Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Yar and another 1984 SCMR 1067 and Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1989 PCr. LJ 799 ref. Javed lqbal for the State
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Iqbal and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2445; Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Yar and another 1984 SCMR 1067 and Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1989 PCr. LJ 799 ref. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Javed lqbal for the State The petitioner is accused of attempting to commit rape one Mst. Noor Bibi, vide F.I.R. No.464, dated 13‑9‑1998 registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal. Successive bail applications tiled by the petitioner have been dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is an unexplained delay of three days in the lodging of the F.I.R., and the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R., is also not convincing. The petitioner is confined in the judicial lock‑up for the last more than ten months. The case is stated to have been fabricated out of enmity and for ulterior motive. Learned counsel further contends that Khuda Bakhsh one of the persons named as witnesses in the F.I.R., is not supporting the prosecution story and a certified copy of his affidavit has been placed on the record. Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
3. I have gone through the records. Prima facie the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the same. The investigation is complete and the person of the petitioner is not required by the police for any purpose. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the cases of Muhammad Iqbal and another v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 2445), Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Yar and another (1984 SCMR 1067) and Muhammad Yunus v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 799), where in the similar A circumstances the accused persons were admitted to bail. In this view of the matter, T admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Judicial Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./M‑174/L Bail granted.