1986 P Cr (PLP)
ZULFIQAR ALI alias KAKA Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI alias KAKA Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (ZULFIQAR ALI alias KAKA Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Akmal Saleemi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th. December, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S‑10 & 7‑‑Bail‑‑Age of accused‑‑Accused less than 18 years of age‑‑Accused liable to awarded maximum S. years sentence‑‑Case not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.‑‑Bail held not to withhold in such cases as a punishment‑Bail granted. Muhammad Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Akmal Saleemi for Petitioner. Muhammad Iqbal for the State. Date of hearing: 12th. December, 1983. This is a bail application on behalf of Zulfiqar who was reported against, vide. F.I.R. No. 24, dated 30‑3‑1983 Police Station Phoklian, District Sialkot for offence under section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. The, allegation against, him is that he committed Zina‑bil‑jabr with a tender age female child. According to the school leaving certificate, age of the petitioner is. 11/12 years whereas according to the doctor who examined the petitioner while he was in police custody, his age is 15/16 and according to the doctor who examined him while he was in judicial lock‑up, age of the petitioner is shown to be 11/12 years. In either case, he is below 18 years of age.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the provisions of section 7 of Ordinance VII of 1979 to state that the punishment for Zina‑bil‑jabr where a person is not an adult would be five years R.I. According to him, the case of the petitioner would not, therefore, within the prohibition contained in section 497 of the Cr.P.C. He also relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Shakeel Ahmad v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 1942 where a view has been taken that a person A like the petitioner who is below 18 years of age, if he commits Zina‑bil-jabr, is liable to be awarded five years R.I. and that the case does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497 of the Cr.P.C.
4. I have considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case and I am of the view that bail in such like cases is not to be withheld as a punishment. The petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs.5,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sialkot, pending trial. M.A.K. Bail granted.