1985 PLP 829 (MLD)
Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 829 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 829 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 829 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 829 (MLD) (Mst. BILQUIS BEGUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Nur Muhammad Awan, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss. 10 &16--Bail--Offence of Zina--Accused allegedly going with her co-accused for having illicit intercourse--No eye-witness of commission of Zina available against accused--Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, held, was not attracted--Bail granted. Ch. Muhammad Mansha for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mst. Balqis Begum petitioner is involved in a case under Articles 16 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1970..She has moved this petition for bail. Mst. Balqis Begum petitioner is a married woman. The F.I.R. was lodged by her father on 9th April, 1985 wherein he alleged that about a month earlier she eloped with Kala but after fifteen days she was restored to him through Panchayat. On 7th April, 1985 she again disappeared from his house. He searched for her and was informed by Bashir Hussain and Muhammad Ali that they had seen her going with afore mentioned Kala. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the petitioner had gone with Kala co-accused for having illicit intercourse.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Article 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, is not attracted and there is no eye-witness to the commission of Zina. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail.
3. I have gone through ,the relevant material. Perusal of the file shows that there is no eye--witness of the commission of Zina. Section 16 of the Ordinance is not attracted in the case of the petitioner. 1, A therefore, admit her to bail in the sum of Rs.10, 000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Lahore Cantt. M.Y.H. Bail granted.