1994 MLD 1796 (PLP)
ABDUL RAZZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 MLD 1796 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAZZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 MLD 1796 (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 1994 MLD 1796 (PLP)?
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: 1994 MLD 1796 (PLP) (ABDUL RAZZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Gulzar Lashari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zino (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/11
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/380/148/149
Prosecution version in respect of the majority of accused in the case had been disbelieved
No recovery had been effected from the accused who was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal
Accused was in judicial custody for over one year and eight months and was no longer required by the Police
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is one of the accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.382/92, dated 1-8-1992 under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zipa (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 324/380/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Samundari, District Faisalabad.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. It was confirmed on behalf of the State that as contended herein, out of eight accused in the instant case, five have since been discharged from the case, whereas one person is not traceable on the basis of name mentioned in the F.I.R. and that in respect of 6th accused it has come on the record that he being in the army was present in his unit on the date of occurrence i.e. 30/31-7-1992. Therefore, placing reliance upon 1982 SCMR page 955, wherein one of the accused had been granted bail, as the prosecution version had been disbelieved in respect of the majority of the accused, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner. In this respect, further notice has been taken of the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over one year and 8 months and that he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and he is no longer required by the police.
3. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Samundari, District Faisalabad.
4. Copy dasti on usual charges. N.H.Q./A-634/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.