2001 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HANEEF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANEEF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 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 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhary, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HANEEF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.494‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑No legal evidence, prima facie, was available with the prosecution against the accused to burden him with the knowledge that before marrying the woman she had not been divorced by her previous husband and in spite of that he contracted marriage with her‑‑‑Case against accused was, thus, open to further inquiry and he could not be kept in jail as a matter of punishment‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1427/B of 2001, decided on 9th April, 2001. ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.494‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑No legal evidence, prima facie, was available with the prosecution against the accused to burden him with the knowledge that before marrying the woman she had not been divorced by her previous husband and in spite of that he contracted marriage with her‑‑‑Case against accused was, thus, open to further inquiry and he could not be kept in jail as a matter of punishment‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner. Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for the State. The petitioner is an accused of offence under section 494, P.P.C. read with section 10(2), Ordinance VII of 1979, vide F.I.R. No.143 registered with Police Station Qadirabad, Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioner was taken into custody on 26‑8‑2000 and since then he is confined in judicial lock‑up. It is argued by the learned counsel that petitioner's wife Mst. Kausar Bibi had in fact been divorced by her previous husband and thereafter, the petitioner had married her. Further, submits that suit for declaration that she had been divorced by her previous husband is pending adjudication, therefore, case against the petitioner is open to further inquiry. It is further supplemented that co‑accused of the petitioner Mst. Kausar has been admitted to bail and if it is viewed from this angle that Mst. Kausar represented herself to be a divorced woman then there is no evidence available with the prosecution that petitioner was aware of the fact that she had not been divorced by her previous husband. The position even today is that Mst. Kausar does not admit herself to be wife of previous husband and claims that she had been divorced. It appears that the prosecution perhaps even did not advert to this aspect of the case as to what legal evidence is available against the petitioner to burden him that he had knowledge that Mst. Kausar Parveen had not been divorced and in spite of that he contracted marriage with her. Be that as it may, I do not want to express any opinion on this aspect of the case, lest it may prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Suffice it to say that case against the petitioner is open to further inquiry and he cannot be kept in jail as a matter of punishment. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑524/L Bail allowed.