1989 PLP 834 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 834 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 834 (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 1989 PLP 834 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 834 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑.‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. delayed by four months‑‑No explanation available on record for delay in registration of case‑‑Accused seen by two witnesses going alongwith co‑accused and abductee‑‑One witness having died other exonerating accused by affidavit‑‑Case of further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Shaukat Hussain for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑.‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. delayed by four months‑‑No explanation available on record for delay in registration of case‑‑Accused seen by two witnesses going alongwith co‑accused and abductee‑‑One witness having died other exonerating accused by affidavit‑‑Case of further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. MA. Zafar for Petitioner. Shaukat Hussain for the State. A case under section 16/7/79 of Islamic Laws stands registered against the petitioner and some others with Police Station Sharqpur, District Sheikhupura, vide F.I.R. dated 10‑4‑1988. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co‑accused, abducted Mst. Sarraya, wife of the first informant, about four months before the registration of the case. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he was seen alongwith his co‑accused going with the alleged abductee.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no explanation with regard to the delay of four months has been given by the first informant. Submits that there are only two eye‑witnesses who saw the petitioner in the company of the alleged abductee and out of them one has died, the other has sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioner. Relies upon 1980 S C M R
920. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State. 3.I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. There is no explanation available on the record for the delay in the registration of the case. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was seen going with the alleged abductee. Out of the two witnesses one has died and the other has sworn A an affidavit exonerating the petitioner, therefore, his case becomes of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sure of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. SA./M‑1226/L Bail allowed.