1988 P Cr (PLP)
SAEED AHMED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | SAEED AHMED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1888)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1888)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (SAEED AHMED‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Masood for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S.12‑‑Bail‑‑Complainant/victim of crime making allegation of abduction and sodomy against accused‑‑Medical evidence and other material collected by police also showing that‑ sodomy had beer committed on complainant‑‑Statutory period for conclusion of trial not elapsed so far‑‑Bail refused.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S.12‑‑Bail‑‑Complainant/victim of crime making allegation of abduction and sodomy against accused‑‑Medical evidence and other material collected by police also showing that‑ sodomy had beer committed on complainant‑‑Statutory period for conclusion of trial not elapsed so far‑‑Bail refused. S.M. Masood for Petitioner. This is an application for grant of bail to Saeed Ahmad in case under section 12 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 377, PPC registered at P.S. Gulberg, Faisalabad vide FIR No.62 dated 22‑1‑1987.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner abducted Mian Khan a boy of 8 or 10 years of age and committed sodomy upon him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the story of the prosecution that the petitioner lifted the child to the roof of the factory is highly improbable; that the petitioner has been involved falsely in the case and the early hearing of the case is not in sight. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself agree with him. I find that in the FIR lodged by Mian Khan, the victim of the crime, he has levelled allegations of this abduction by the petitioner in order to subject him to unnatural lust; that the petitioner also committed sodomy upon him: that the medical evidence reveals that the sodomy had been committed on Mian Khan complainant; that in view of the material collected by the police during the investigation, it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences and that the statutory time for the conclusion of trial has not elapsed so far. For what has been said above, there being no merit, they petition is dismissed at this stage. M.Y.H./S‑175/L Bail refused.