2009 PLP 356 (YLR)
ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 356 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J |
| Parties | ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 356 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 356 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 356 (YLR) (ZAHID IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif Gondal for Petitioner.
- Pervaiz Alamgir Sheikh, D.P.G. with Asif, S.-I. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16
Further inquiry--Accused, no doubt, was nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, but High Court had to see from the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether case against accused was made out or not
No direct or indirect evidence was on record which could connect accused with the commission of said offence
Unexplained delay of four days in lodging the F.I.R. had prima facie falsified the allegation levelled against accused and possibility of false implication of accused in the case could not be ruled out
Had it been genuine abduction, then there was no reason on the part of the complainant not to lodge F.I.R. instantly
Medical evidence was of no significance for the reason that abductee being a married woman, it could not be ascertained as to whether semen stained swabs collected by the prosecution was exactly the same which belonged to the accused
No grouping having been done, it could not be determined as to whether it was accused who was the one who had committed Zina -bil-Jabr
Case of accused being of further inquiry into his guilt, he was admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.186/2006 dated 29-5-2006 registered under sections 10/16/79(11) at Police Station Mandi Bahauddin.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he had abducted daughter of the complainant and had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye-witness account to the alleged abduction and false case stands registered against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant. There is four days delay in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on record regarding abduction of the daughter of the complainant by the present petitioner. He further submits that medical examination conducted on the victim is absolutely insignificant as she is married woman.
4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the abductee has stated in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is the one who had abducted her and had committee Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He further argues that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role but I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances of the case as to whether case against the petitioner is made out or not. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record which could connect the present petitioner with the commission of the said offence. There is unexplained delay of four days in lodging of the F.I.R. which prima facie falsifies the allegations levelled against the petitioner and possibility of false implication of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. Had it been genuine abduction then there is no reason whatsoever on the part of the complainant not to lodge the instant F.I.R. instantly. As far as medical evidence is concerned, I am afraid it is of no significance for the reason that the abductee being a married woman and it cannot be ascertained as to whether semen stained swabs collected by the prosecution are exactly the same which belong to the petitioner and since no grouping was done, therefore, it cannot be determined as to whether it is the petitioner who is one who had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./Z-40/L Bail granted.