1983 PCr (PLP)
MUSA-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUSA-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PCr (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 PCr (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: 1983 PCr (PLP) (MUSA-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 2nd August, 1982
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497-Bail, grant of-Petitioner, charged for committing offence of Zina, under section 10 of Offence of Zina [Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)-F. I. R. lodged with delay of 4/5 days, no marks of violence found on person of prosecutrix and finally vaginal swabs not reported stained with semen-Held: A case of further inquiry made out, in circumstances-Petitioner allowed bail-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10. C. M. Latif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi for Petitioner. C. M. Latif for the State. Date of hearing : 2nd August, 1982 This is an application for bail on behalf of Moosa petitioner in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Kanganpur vide F.I.R. No. 91 dated 28th May, 1982.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner committed rape upon Mst. Hafeezan four five days before the registration of the case in the area of village Rasulpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a false case and the report of the Chemical Examiner with regard to the vaginal swabs is negative. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed this app lication.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that there is a delay of 415 days in lodging the F. I. R. no marks of violence were found on the person of the prosecutrix and that the vaginal swabs were found "not stained with semen". In these circumstances I am of the opinion that it is a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Kasur. Bail allowed.