2003 PLP 1397 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ALTAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1397 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALTAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1397 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1397 (MLD)?
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: 2003 PLP 1397 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ALTAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ayaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(2)/11
Accused was merely witness of Nikah between co-accused and alleged abductee and no allegation of Zina was levelled against the accused
Alleged abductee had owned co-accused to be her husband
Case against accused fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt-- Accused was behind the bars and was stated to be previous non convict
Judgment & Decree
Mrs. Humera Tariq for the Complainant. Muhammad Altaf, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.258 dated 17-11-2002 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added section 10(2) of the same in it.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 4-11-2002 Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, 17/18 years old; the daughter of the complainant for Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that there is delay of 13 days without any reasonable explanation; that he is merely witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen; that there is no allegation of Zina against him, that co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and Mgt. Riffat are legally wedded spouses and so no offence has been committed by anyone; that he is behind the bars for the last about four months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel, for she complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is one of the accused persons who had forcibly abducted the daughter of the complainant for Zina; and that he is also witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen while their Nikahanama has been found by the police to be forged one and not genuine and so he is connected with the offence.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he alongwith Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, the daughter of the complainant for Zina. Besides than this, he is also said to be one of the witnesses of the Niakh between co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and the alleged abductee.
7. There is with the petition, the copy of application submitted by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused for her release from the Darul Aman. In the same, on 17-12-2002, she was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Multan. She has stated before him that she wants her release and has owned Muhammad Ramzan to be her husband. There is no allegation of Zina against him. Hence, his case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, find him entitled to bail The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court. H.B.T./M-1881/L Bail granted.