2006 PLP 2384 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2384 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2384 (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 2006 PLP 2384 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2384 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(3), 11, 13 & 14
F.I.R. had been lodged after a lapse of six months
Complainant had voluntarily gone with accused
No allegation of having committed Zina with complainant had been levelled against accused in F.I.R.
Accused was behind the bars for the last about four years and trial had not concluded
Main accused had already been granted bail
Accused was also entitled to concession of bail in view of law of consistency
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.37 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001 for offences under sections 10(3)/11/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station City Kahror Pakka, District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept the complainant with him on pretext of contracting marriage while the co-accused allegedly committed Zina with her after having procured her services.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last more than three years and eleven months and that the main accused namely Zulfiqar had been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.566/B of 2005 dated 16-3-2006 and that keeping in view the law of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 30-5-2002 and the challan was submitted in the trial Court on 25-9-2004 and that seven witnesses had been examined at the trial so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been noticed that the F.I.R. had been lodged after a lapse of six months. The complainant had voluntarily gone with the petitioner. No allegation of having committed Zina with the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. The petitioner is in jail since 30-5-2002 and the trial has not yet concluded. The main accused of the petitioner namely Zulfiqar has already been granted bail by this Court on 16-3-2006 and keeping in view the law of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-297/L Bail granted.