2002 PLP 3725 (YLR)
MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3725 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3725 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 3725 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3725 (YLR) (MUNIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(1), first proviso‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Grant of bail on ground of age of accused‑‑‑Matter was not reported to Police for two months ‑‑‑Co‑accused who were assigned similar role, were found to be innocent by Police during investigation‑‑ Provision of S.10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was added during investigation which took away the element of rape‑‑Police record showed that accused at time of his arrest was aged about 16/17 years while according to School Leaving Certificate, accused was about 15 years of age at time of commission of offence‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Shaukat Ali Kharl for the State
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner. Shaukat Ali Kharl for the State Munir Ahmad petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.239 registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif on 16‑5‑2001 for offences under sections 11/10(2) Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
3. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, niece of the complainant was forcibly abducted by the petitioner and two others and subsequently Mst. Kalsoom Bibi informed the complainant that the petitioner and his other co‑accused committed rape with her.
4. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 23-5‑2001 and is in judicial lock‑up.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
6. It has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for two months. Admittedly Maqbool Ahmad and Shan co‑accused who were assigned the similar role were found to be innocent by the police during investigation, that during investigation section 10(2) of the Ordinance A was added which takes away the element of rape. According to the police record the petitioner at the time of his arrest was aged about 16/17 years while according to the school leaving certificate which has been placed on the record, the petitioner was about 15 years of age at the time of commission of offence and, therefore, was a minor. Considering all the circumstances of the case admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1213/L Bail granted.