2000 PLP 3004 (YLR)
RIAZ ASAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 3004 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Bashir A. Mujahid, J |
| Parties | RIAZ ASAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 3004 (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 2000 PLP 3004 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Bashir A. Mujahid, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 3004 (YLR) (RIAZ ASAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Suleman Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1999.
- Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused had been arrested in the case about ten months back‑‑‑Complete or incomplete challan had not yet been submitted in the Court‑‑ Abscondence of co‑accused was not a valid ground for non‑submission of incomplete challan against the accused who was behind the bars‑‑‑Allegation of receiving the money from the present complainant was also available during the investigation of the earlier F.I.R.‑‑‑Inquiry in separate application of the complainant by some other Officer was also not a sufficient ground for not inquiring into the matter if the allegations had been made in statement under S.161, Cr. P. C. ‑‑‑Bail could not be withheld as a punishment and the accused could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period as an under‑trial prisoner‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Shakeel Hasan Rashidi v. The State 1992 MLD 99; Sher Ahmad v. The State PLD 1993 Pesh. 104; Qazi Ghulam Mustafa v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 2004 and Sh.Sharif Ahmad v. The State 1995 MLD 1821 ref. Ch.Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel and Javed Iqbal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Miss Asia Yasmeen for the State. Date of hearing: 24th February, 2000. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.181 of 1999 registered under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, NO.VII of 1979 at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated the facts according to the prosecution story are that the complainant had reported that on the day of occurrence Mst. Naziran wife of Sultan and Rehmat Bibi wife of Abdul Khaliq came to his house and took Mst. Halima Bibi with them on the pretext to purchase bangles and .providing of meat on Eid-ul-Azha festival. When her daughter did not turn up till morning he started searching her. He alongwith witnesses went to Abdul Khaliq and Muhammad Ali accused who told them that Sarwar and Sultan had taken away the abductee. Abdul Khaliq petitioner confessed his guilt and promised to search Mst. Halima.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two months and there is no direct evidence of abduction against the petitioner and he further contended that there is no direct evidence of Zina against him and there is a delay of lodging the F.I.R. of about '6 months and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant for the delay.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner..
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ,
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but no direct evidence of abduction of Mst. Haleema is available on the record. There are no witnesses named in the F.I.R. who have seen the petitioner taking away Mst. Haleema. The only evidence available on the record is the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. wherein two witnesses have stated that the petitioner has made extra- judicial confession before them. This evidence is a weak type of evidence. There are no, sufficient grounds to believe the involvement of the, petitioner in ,the commission of the offence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two months and no more required by the police for further investigation. The abductee had been recovered and her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. has not been recorded so .far by the prosecution. The case, of the petitioner is of further, inquiry, In view of the above discussion and without prejudicing the merits of the case f accept this petition and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./A- 7/L