2004 PLP 2367 (YLR)
ABDUL SHAKOOR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2367 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | ljaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SHAKOOR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2367 (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 2004 PLP 2367 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: ljaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2367 (YLR) (ABDUL SHAKOOR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joiya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16-- Bail, grant of
Alleged abductee had not been recovered despite accused remained on police remand for 10 days
Only allegation of enticement against accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C.
Accused was already behind bars since his arrest without any progress in the trial
Further detention of accused in jail would serve no beneficial purpose to the prosecution
Bail could not be withheld as a punishment
Judgment & Decree
Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. -No.539, dated 14-10-2002 registered on the statement of Muhammad Ail under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. According to the complainant he was labourer. On 1-1-2002 at about 10-00 a.m. when his daughter Mst. Nursrat Bibi aged about 18 years was alone in the house, she was enticed away by Abdul Shakoor petitioner. The complainant when returned at about 1-00 p.m. found her missing and she was searched for whereupon the witnesses told him that she was seen in the company of Abdul Shakoor, hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 31-10-2002 and was sent to jail on 10-11-2002, but during police remand no recovery was effected from the petitioner. It is also contended that except the oral statements of the witnesses no other evidence is available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year without any progress in the trial and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes this bail application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he is the single accused whereas the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. The alleged I abductee has not been recovered so far, in spite of that the petitioner remained on police remand for 10 days. For the present there is only allegation of enticement which offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The petitioner is already behind the bars since 31-10-2002 without any progress in the trial. Further detention of the petitioner in jail will serve no beneficial purpose to the prosecution. Moreover bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
6. In such circumstances, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-89/L Bail granted.