2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 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: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dilshad Ali Khan Nadeem and Sardar Zafar Iqbal Khan Tareen for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/I1
Matter was reported to police after a considerable delay- -Allegations levelled in F.I.R, were found to be incorrect during the investigation-- -Co-accused were also found to be innocent during investigation
Allegation against accused, in, circumstances, needed further, probe within the ambit of subsection (2) of 5.497, Cr.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
Dilshad Ali Khan Nadeem and Sardar Zafar Iqbal Khan Tareen for Petitioner. Mirza Muhammad Nadeem Asif for the State. Date of hearing; 13th October, 2003. Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Hussain petitioner through Criminal Miscellaneous No.817/B of 2003 and Zahoor Ahmad son of Muhammad Hussain through Criminal Miscellaneous No.1030/B of 2003 have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.lI6 registered at Police Station Liaquatpur, for offences under sections 11/10(3) of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on 11-4-2003. During investigation both the offences were deleted and were substituted by section 10(2) of the Ordinance.
2. As both the matters relate to the same F.I.R. and the facts, I decide the same through this single order.
3. Briefly, the relevant facts. of the case are that on 5-3-2003 Mst.Hajiran Bibi and Muhammad Shafi on a false pretext made Mst. Rauf Siddiq complainant accompany them. The complainant was taken to the house of Muhammad Yaqoob, where Muhammad Yaqoob-petitioner and Muhammad Riaz allegedly committed Zina with her. It was added in the F.I.R. that thereafter Zahoor Ahmad petitioner abducted the complainant, took her to Sahiwal and kept her there for more than a month. However, the complainant succeeded in returning to her house and after ten days reported the matter to the police.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for a considerable delay either by Mst. Rauf Siddiq or her parents, that during investigation the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were found to be incorrect inasmuch as the status of Mst. Rauf Siddiq was lowered from that of complainant to accused; that Mst. Hajiran, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Yaqoob were found to be innocent during investigation. In these circumstances, the allegations against the petitioners need further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioners are admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the 'satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./M-2406/L Bail granted.