P L D 1992 Peshawar 136 (PLP)
MUNSIF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1992 Peshawar 136 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mehbub Ali Khan, J |
| Parties | MUNSIF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1992 Peshawar 136 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1992 Peshawar 136 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mehbub Ali Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1992 Peshawar 136 (PLP) (MUNSIF KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM and 3 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saeed Akhtar Khan for Petitioner.
- Haji Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th January, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497(5)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.6/10/11/16‑‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑‑‑Victim girl in her statement duly recorded by a Magistrate had charged the accused for committing Zina‑bil- Jabr at different times and places after her abduction from the house of her parents‑‑‑Grant of bail to accused in such circumstances was not justified and the same was recalled accordingly. Muhammad Aslam Khan, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Haji Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents. Muhammad Aslam Khan, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1992. Accused Mohammad Saleem etc. have secured .bail in a case registered under section 6/10/11/16 of Ordinance No.VII of 1979.
2. Munsif Khan lodged a report with the local police of P.S.Haripur on 13‑5‑1991 and charged the accused‑respondents for forcible abduction of his daughter Mst. Gul Zardan Bibi from his dwelling house situated in Mohallah Faqir Abad at 2 a.m. night. The accused were allegedly seen by P.Ws. Rehmat Din and Mohammad Akram (mentioned in the report) who arc residents of the same Mohallah. Later on accused Mohammad Saleem was arrested on 15‑5‑1991. A1 his pointation the police on the same day recovered Mst. Gul Zardan Bibi from a' hotel at Abbottabad. In the hotel record she was shown as wife of the accused. Mst. Gul Zardan was medically examined and found between 21‑22 years of age and not virgin. No blood or semen stains were, however, detected on the clothes.
3. Mst. Gul Zardan Bibi when examined by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. did not name any person for abduction and adultery. She later on appeared before a Magistrate on the following day, made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. and charged accused Muhammad Saleem for committing sexual intercourse with her by force at different places after her abduction including the hotel from where she was recovered on the preceding day.
4. The factum of adultery is proved by the medical evidence. The controversy that Mst. Gul Zardan Bibi being a major girl had gone with the accused at her own accord and was a consenting party to the events is open to question and may be solved when some evidence is recorded in trial. At this stage I find the statement of the victim girl duly recorded by a Magistrate wherein she has charged accused Mohammad Saleem for committing Zina‑bil‑Jabr at different times and places after her abduction from the house of her parents. The grant of bail to accused Mohammad Saleem in a case like this, in the circumstances, cannot be justified. The same is recalled at the request of the complainant. Accused Mohammad Saleem may be taken into custody.
5. The request for cancellation of bail of the co‑accused, in view of the role attributed to them in the case, would be declined. N.H.Q./1332/P Order accordingly.