1981 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SUBHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1981 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mohammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SUBHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mohammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SUBHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363 and Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. II-Bail, grant of-Delay in submission of challan or recording of evidence without any fault on part of accused-Accused, held, justified in ask ing for bail, 'in circumstances. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497 read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 363 and Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. II-Bail, grant of-Delay in submission of challan or recording of evidence without any fault on part of accused-Accused, held, justified in ask ing for bail, 'in circumstances. Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioner. Ch. Nazir Ahmad for the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Subhan peti tioner, in a case registered at Police Station, Vehari on 11th March, 1981 under section 363, P. P. C. read with section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of 6 days in lodging the F.I.R. and that from the perusal of the F.I.R., the ingredients of section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are not made out. So far as the offence under section 10 of the aforementioned Ordinance is concerned, the learned counsel submits that from the circumstances and trend of the statements of the prosecutrix it appears that it is not a case of unwillingness. Therefore, this case does not fall under section 10 (3) and even if the allegations of the prosecutrix are accepted at its face value, the crime may fall under section 10 (2) which is punishable with imprisonment for ten years. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the application. He submits that the alleged abductee in her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P. C. has stated that the petitioner had committed rape upon her, and as such the case falls within prohibition contained in sec tion 497, Cr. P. C. and that it is not a fit case for bail. The Investigating Officer states that the petitioner was arrested on 18th March, 1981 and the challan has not been submitted so far. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that be that as it may, the fact remains there that the challan has not been submitted so far. To demand speedy trial is a recognized right of accused person and if there is delay in the submission of the Challan or recording of the evidence without any fault o A his part, then he is justified in asking for bail Without making any ex pression lest it may prejudice the case of either party, I allow the petitioner bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate/A. C., Vehari. Bail allowed.