1994 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. KHANUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. KHANUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. KHANUM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10/13/14
Evidence collected by the Police so far showed that the accused was running a brothel house in her abode, but no cogent evidence was available to show that the accused had engaged or hired the girl found in her house for prostitution
Case against accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry and she was admitted to bail accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Lal Khan Baloch for Petitioner. M. Jahangir for the State. Date of hearing: 5th October, 1993. The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 10/13/14 of Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F. I. R. No. 127, dated 6-6-1993, registered at Police Station Lallian, District Jhang, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F. I. R., it is alleged that on spy information the police conducted raid at the house of the petitioner and two persons Gul Nawaz and Abdul Ghafoor were found committing Zina with Mst. Nusrat in her house under her supervision and guard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being a woman is entitled to preferential treatment in view of proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C. Learned counsel further contended there is no evidence whatsoever on the record to connect the petitioner with the offences under sections 13 and 14 of Ordinance VI of 1979; hence in the presence of this material the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and she is entitled to the grant of bail even in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.
4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed this bail application on the ground that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and there is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has been involved on account of enmity between the petitioner and one Bashir Ahmad, A. S. I. hence the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. I find substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that at present there is no material available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the offence. The only evidence collected so far by the police is that the petitioner was running a brothel house in her abode but there is no cogent evidence to show that Mst. Nusrat was engaged or hired by the petitioner A for prostitution; hence the case against the petitioner being one of further inquiry, she is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Chiniot. N.H.Q./K-109/L Bail granted