2000 PLP 268 (YLR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 268 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 268 (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 2000 PLP 268 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam‑uz‑Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 268 (YLR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑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), S.11‑‑ Bail ‑‑‑No allegation of Zina had been made against the accused‑‑‑During investigation accused did not lead to the recovery of the alleged abductee‑‑‑Challan according to the Investigating Officer could not possibly be submitted in the Court before the recovery of the abductee‑‑‑No useful purpose could be served by keeping the accused in jail for indefinite period‑‑‑Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Shaukat Hussain Kharal for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Ahmad petitioner seeks grant of bail in case F.I.R. No. 362 of 1998 dated 29‑10‑1998 registered under section 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station, Kameer, District Sahiwal.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others abducted Mst. Safia Kausar, sister of the complainant‑Muhammad Rashid, in order to subject her to illicit intercourse.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner and that more than three months have passed but the police has not submitted the challan. Conversely learned counsel for the State has opposed the instant application.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner who was arrested and detained by the police but during investigation he did not lead to the recovery of the alleged abductee. The Investigating Officer present in Court submits that there is no possibility of the submission of challan before the recovery of the abductee. In the circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served. by keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. He is, therefore, allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. It would, however, be open to State/complainant to move for cancellation of bail, if any further evidence comes on record connecting the petitioner with the crime. The instant petition stands disposed of. N.H.Q./B‑68/L Bail allowed.