1983 P Cr (PLP)
NOOK MUHAMMAD — petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J |
| Parties | NOOK MUHAMMAD — petitioner 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: Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (NOOK MUHAMMAD — petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Humid Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Bail, grant of-Petitioner, accused of offences under Ss. 10, 11 & 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for having abducted prosecutrix, allegedly a girl below 16 years of age-Age certificate, however, a disputed document and yet to be got verified
Investigation complete and person of petitioner not further required for investigation-Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10, 11 &
16. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Bail, grant of-Petitioner, accused of offences under Ss. 10, 11 & 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for having abducted prosecutrix, allegedly a girl below 16 years of age-Age certificate, however, a disputed document and yet to be got verified
Investigation complete and person of petitioner not further required for investigation-Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10, 11 &
16. Rana Abdul Humid Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Petitioner is accused of offence under sections 10/11 and 16 of Ordi nance V11 of 1979. It s alleged that he abducted Mst. Meraj Begum. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the medical report Mst. Meraj Begum is aged 22/23 years. She willingly married the petitioner and is presently mother of one child born out of wedlock of Mst. Meraj Begum with the petitioner, and that Mst. Meraj Begum is living in the house of the petitioner.
2. Nobody has appeared for the State. The Investigating Officer is present in Court and says that challan has already been submitted in Court and person of the petitioner is no longer required for further investigation. According to the Investigating Officer the birth certificate produced by the complainant showing age of the abductee as less than 16 years is a dispute, document which is to be verified.
3. Since the person of the petitioner is not required for further investigation and prima facie it appears to be a case not falling within the propitiatory clause I allow bail to the petitioner subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Jhang. Bail allowed.