1983 P Cr (PLP)
SALAMAT AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALAMAT AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (SALAMAT AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Kalim Ahmad Khurshid for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑S. 497‑‑Bail‑Demand of speedy trial, held, right of accused person‑In case of denial of such right, accused, held further, entitled to be released on bail‑Petitioner's challan in Court not submitted till four months after his arrest‑Bail allowed in circum. stances of case.
Judgment & Decree
G. A. Farid Khan for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Salamat. Amanat and Barkat Ali in a case under section 10111/16 of the Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Saddar, Sheikpura vide F. I. R. No. 166/1981.
2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they committed rape upon Mst. Razia Bibi, complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 20 days in lodging the F. I. R. and there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners have committed the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioners were arrested on 18th April, 1981 yet the challan has not been submitted.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed this petition. He submits that the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause, the offence being heinous one the petitioners are not entitled to bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the petitioners were arrested on 18th April, 1981 and the challan has not been submitted so far. I am of the opinion that the demand of speedy trial and early submission of the challan is the right of an accused person and in case be is denied this right without any fault on his part then he would be justified in asking for bail. Without making any expression lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I allow The petitioners bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (rupees. Ten thousand) with one surety, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of A..C. Sheikhupura.
6. It would be open to the complainant or the prosecution to apply for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners after the submis sion of the challan, if so advised. M.Y.M Bail granted.