2005 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 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 2005 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD USMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Shahid Pervaiz Kahloon for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 498 & 345
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380
Allegation of complainant was that accused, after scaling outer wall of the house of complainant, had committed Zina with her daughter; caused injuries to her and her daughter (victim) and also forcibly took away jewellary pieces of the victim
Accused had contended that the parties had compromised and the complainant also endorsed the contention of the accused
Held, compromise in such-like case was not permitted under S.345, Cr.P.C. as Offence of Zina was an offence not against the individual only but it was also against the good conscience of the society and said offence had not been included in. the list of offences which were compoundable
Allegation in the F.I.R. was of very serious nature and the accused had not urged grounds which were normally considered for granting extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail except that complainant and her daughter had compromised with the accused
High Court, in view of the seriousness of the offence declined the bail to accused. Saleem Shad for the State. Dilawar Hussain, A.S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel has filed this bail application under section 498, Cr.P.C. for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The accused is nominated in F.I.R. No.254 of 2004 dated 18-5-2004 registered under section 10/7/1979, H.O. and section 380, P.P.C. at Police. Station Saddar Narowal.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R. the petitioner entered after scaling outer wall of the house of complainant and committed Zina with her daughter namely Yasmeen. On her resistance, he also caused injuries to Yasmeen. While the petitioner was committing Zina with Yasmeen, the complainant woke up and tried to rescue her daughter whereupon she was also injured by the petitioner. While running away from the scene of occurrence, the petitioner also forcibly took away golden jewellery i.e. one locket, two golden rings of Yasmeen.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above FIR is a result of enmity between the parties. Already some criminal cases are pending between the parties. He further submits that parties have compromised. The complainant has also appeared with learned counsel for the petitioner who has supported the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail. According to the learned counsel for the State concession of bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession which can be granted to those who are prima facie innocent or involved malafidely by police or complainant. No element of mala fide is present in the case in hand. He further submits that the offence is not compoundable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State.
6. It is correct that the complainant has endorsed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has been effected between the parties but the contention of the learned counsel for the State cannot be brushed aside that compromise in such-like case is not permitted under section 345, Cr.P.C. as offence of Zina is offence not against the individual only but it is also against the good conscience of the society. Probably that is the reason that it has not been included in the list of offences which are compoundable. It may be noted that F.I.R. No.254 of 2004 is dated 18-5-2004 and since then the petitioner has been on bail before arrest. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is of very serious nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged grounds which are normally considered for granting extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail except that complainant and her daughter have compromised with the petitioner. I have no idea what forced the ladies to compromise with the petitioner. Nevertheless, in view of seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant this bail application, which is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./M-1072/L Bail refused.