1988 PLP 28 (SCMR)
TARIQ PERWAIZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 28 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ PERWAIZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 28 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 28 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 28 (SCMR) (TARIQ PERWAIZ and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th July, 1987.
- 4. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the petitioners were not apprehended at the spot nor were they present there and they could legitimately claim to be ignorant of what was happening during their absence, if at all the allegations were true. He also stated that one of the accused in the case namely Ashfaq has already been admitted to bail.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court dated 1-7-1987 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2161-B/87).
S. 498--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 13, 14 & 18--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)--Refusal of bail before arrest--First information report itself showing that the two petitioners were present but managed to escape- Correctness or otherwise of such statement would certainly be examined at the trial--Courts below noting that there was not the slightest indication on record at this stage that any of witnesses was prompted to implicate petitioners on a false charge--Allegation against police officer also not very clear and strong enough to entitle petitioners to bail before arrest--Leave to appeal refused against order to refuse bail before arrest.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The two petitioners, husband and wife, seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 1-7-1987 refusing them bail before arrest in a case registered under sections 13, 14 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. On information being received that the two petitioners were using bungalow No.458, Neelum Block, Allama Iqbal Town, as a prostitution den, got a decoy witness and through him established the fact, raided the place and recovered certain persons and registered a case on the 30th of May, 1987.
3. The petitioners sought bail before arrest from the Sessions Judge who rejected it on the ground that no malice was attributed to the police and there were independent witnesses in support of the case. The High Court also refused them bail before arrest.
4. Mr. M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that the petitioners were not apprehended at the spot nor were they present there and they could legitimately claim to be ignorant of what was happening during their absence, if at all the allegations were true. He also stated that one of the accused in the case namely Ashfaq has already been admitted to bail.
5. The first information report itself shows that the two petitioners were present but managed to escape. The correctness or otherwise of the statement will certainly be examined at the trial. As noted by the two Courts, there is not the slightest indication on the record at this stage that any of the witnesses was prompted to implicate them on a false charge. There is some allegation against the police officer, but that too is not very clear and strong enough to entitle the petitioners in a case like this to bail before arrest. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. S.Q./T-14/S Leave refused.