1985 PLP 870 (MLD)
GIIULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 870 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Akhtar Hasan, J |
| Parties | GIIULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 870 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 870 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Akhtar Hasan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 870 (MLD) (GIIULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Komal on behalf of Muhammad Rafique Khan Chauhan for petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 is 16--Bail, grant of--Alleged abductee herself making contradictory statements and rival claims of her marriage asserted--Held, case of further inquiry and some evidence would have to be recorded to sort out issue--Petitioner allowed bail, in circumstances. 1982 P Cr.L J 1066 ref. Noon Muhammad Fazil for the State.
Judgment & Decree
1982 P Cr.L J 1066 ref. Muhammad Anwar Komal on behalf of Muhammad Rafique Khan Chauhan for petitioner. Noon Muhammad Fazil for the State. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983. It is contended that already in Criminal Miscellaneous No.2004-B of 1983, co-accused Nazir Ahmad was allowed bail by this Court in this very case, and further that as the abductee made contradictory statements at different times, it came out to be a case of further inquiry. The complainant, mother alleged in the F.I.R that the abductee was already married to one Muhammad Akram, whereas she herself in a civil suit and criminal complaint averred than she had entered into a marriage with the petitioner of her own free-will, and that she had neither been abducted nor ravished. Reliance was placed upon 1982 P Cr. L J 1066, in which it was laid down that if an abductee makes contradictory statements, it comes out to be a case of further inquiry and the accused be allowed bail.
2. Learned counsel .for the State stresses the factum of her Nikah with Akram, whicn, according to him, had taken place earlier in time, and that in presence thereof, she could not, enter into a second marriage.
3. In view of contradictory statements of the abductee herself and the rival claims of marriage, it really seems to be a case of further inquiry. She was sui juris when abducted. There was possibility of her entering into marriage with the petitioner. Conversely, it was equally possible that she may have been married earlier to her cousin Akram, and, at the same time, it was open to show that either of the marriage was fake. Accordingly, some evidence shall be needed to sort it out. In the meantime, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. S . G . D . Bail allowed.