1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUMTAZ NANGIANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad, J |
| Parties | MUMTAZ NANGIANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (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 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUMTAZ NANGIANA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yusaf Kazmi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497/498--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11--Bail before arrest--Offence of abduction--Comp lainant and two other witnesses supporting allegation but abductee not making any allegation of abduction against accused in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.--Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmed. Abdul Hamid Talib for the State
Judgment & Decree
Yusaf Kazmi for Petitioner. Abdul Hamid Talib for the State Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 64, dated 26-4-83, Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha registered under section 10/11 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Hussain forcibly abducted Mst.Amiran from her father's house and took her away in a car. Mst. Amiran was dragged out from her fahter's house by Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Hussain while the petitioner who was armed with a gun had threatened that if anybody intervenes he will be done to death.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been involved falsely, that all the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail after arrest and that Mst. Amiran in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made on the 24th May, 1983 has not made any allegation of abduction, either against the petitioner or against anybody else.
4. Learned counsel for the State has not denied the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the statement of Mst. Amiran , but he has stated that Mst. Amiran has already been arrested in this case and she is being challaned for having committed Zina. He had however stated after consulting the Investigating Officer that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner.
5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been charged of only abduction, although the complainant and two other witnesses have supported the allegation of abduction but the abductee herself has exonerated the petitioner of the charge of abduction and as such for the present a case for pre-arrest bail is made out. In the circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioner is confirmed. He shall, however, furnish fresh bail bonds. He will continue to join the investigation as and when required. M. Y. H. Bail confirmed.