1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YASIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN and another‑‑Petitioners 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: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YASIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Farrukh Mahmood for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 11‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Abductee in her statement recorded under 164, Cr. P.C. not levelling allegations of Zina against accused persons‑‑Age of abductee shown as 18 years‑‑Question of abduction in order to subject abductee to sexual intercourse, held, required further inquiry‑‑Bail granted. Muhammad Fahim Riaz for the State,
Judgment & Decree
Malik Farrukh Mahmood for Petitioners. Muhammad Fahim Riaz for the State, This is an application by Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Shafi petitioners for bail in case under section 11 of the Offence of Zina, (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Dera Nawab Sahib vide F.I.R. No.23/85.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners abducted Mst. Tahira Parveen in order to subject her to sexual intercourse.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are no allegations of Zina against the petitioners. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the plea for the bail of the petitioners on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to connect the petitioners with the abduction of Mst. Tahira Parveen, a minor girl aged 13 years.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that in her statement recorded under, section 164, Cr.P.C., Mat. Tahira Parveen has not levelled allegations of Zina by the petitioners with her; that she has been married to one Muhammad Hanif on 2‑3‑1985 and her age has been shown as 18 years and that the question of abduction in order to subject her to sexual intercourse requires further inquiry.
5. For what has been stated above, the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Bahawalpur. H.A.K. Bail granted.