2003 P Cr (PLP)
MAKHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAKHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (MAKHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Offence of, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11/16
Allegation against the accused was that he alongwith co-accused had abducted the daughter of the complainant-- One of the co-accused had claimed that he had married with alleged abductee and in proof of his claim had produced copies of affidavit of free Will and Nikahnama
Case had not proceeded on account of abscondence of accused and even proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had not been commenced and trial was not likely to take place
Since no charge had been framed since the apprehension of the accused and matter was not likely to conclude in near future as Trial Court Was on leave, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.497
Offence of, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 11/16
Allegation against the accused was that he alongwith co-accused had abducted the daughter of the complainant-- One of the co-accused had claimed that he had married with alleged abductee and in proof of his claim had produced copies of affidavit of free Will and Nikahnama
Case had not proceeded on account of abscondence of accused and even proceedings under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. had not been commenced and trial was not likely to take place
Since no charge had been framed since the apprehension of the accused and matter was not likely to conclude in near future as Trial Court Was on leave, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Murad v. The State 1989 MLD 643; Mst. Razia Nawaz alias Razia Bano v. The State and 2 others PLD 2001 Lah. 421 and Muhammad Ali v. The State 2001 YLR 2843 ref. Haji Abdul Majeed for Applicant, Anwar Ansari for the State. The applicant claims bail in Crime No.54 of 2001 under sections 11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance registered at Police Station Peerumal. The allegations against the applicants are that he alongwith other co-accused abducted the daughter of the complainant Mst. Ameena. All other accused were apprehended except accused Ghulam Mustafa who it is-alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant had married the alleged abductee and the copies of the affidavit of free will and Nikahnama have been placed by the learned counsel. Said documents were obtained from the police. According to learned counsel since on account of absconsion of the principal accused case has not proceeded and even proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. have not yet been commenced and trial is not likely to take place. He has relied on the cases of Murad v. The State 1989 MLD
643. Mst. Razia Nawaz alias Razia Bano v. The State and 2 others PLD 2001 Lah. 42 and Muhammad Ali v. The State 2001 YLR 2843. Challan has been submitted on 25-11-2001. The applicant was apprehended on 9-3-2002. It is stated that since then no charge has yet been framed and the matter it not likely to conclude as the learned treat Court is on leave and the link Judge does not proceed with the case on merit. In the circumstances and in view of the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel the applicant is admitted to bail however, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-453/K Bail granted.