1998 PLP 2057 (MLD)
HAQ NAWAZ and others — Petitioner: Versus STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2057 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HAQ NAWAZ and others — Petitioner: Versus STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2057 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2057 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2057 (MLD) (HAQ NAWAZ and others — Petitioner: Versus STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Arshad Mehmood for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12
One accused according to record was less than 16 years of age and the other accused was slightly over 16/1-2 years of age and in view of their minority they were admitted to bail.
[Age].
Judgment & Decree
Arshad Mehmood for Petitioners. Shahzad Nasir for the Complainant. Amir Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1996 Petitioners seek bail in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1996 dated 10-4-1996 under section 377, P.P.C. read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station Sadar Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioners alongwith two others namely Abid Hussain and Haqnawaz took away Rabnawaz, nephew of the complainant to a Dhari and subjected him to criminal assault.
3. The petitioners have applied for grant of bail to them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the school leaving certificate date of birth of Haqnawaz was 3-1-1984 and that of Ahmad Yar was 15-6-1982 and Haqnawaz was still a student and case against them was false and they were declared innocent by the Investigating Agency as well. It was further submitted that the Chemical Examiner's Report did not advance the case of the prosecution and in this view of the matter, the case of the petitioners was that of further enquiry. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that the age of Haqnawaz was 15/1-2 years and that of Ahmad Yar 16/1-2 years at the time of occurrence, and they were sufficiently grown up and the material on record sufficiently connects them with the commission of offence. It was further submitted that the petitioners were declared innocent on' the Sale ground that the offence was committed with consent of the victim whereas the consent was immaterial in the case under section 377, P.P.C.
5. According to record, Haqnawaz is less than 16 years of age and Ahmed Yar is slightly over 16/1-2 years of age. Keeping in view the minority of the petitioners, they are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. N.H.Q./H-55/L Bail granted.