2003 PLP 3188 (YLR)
FARIDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 3188 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | FARIDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 3188 (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 2003 PLP 3188 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 3188 (YLR) (FARIDA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497. first proviso‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(4)/13/14‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Accused being a woman, first proviso to S. 497, Cr. P. C. was attracted to her case‑‑ Accused lady was behind the bars for the last about three months with suckling baby and she was previous non‑convict‑‑‑Accused was entitled to bail. Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for the State. Farida, the petitioner has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.148, dated 8‑5‑2002 under sections 10(4)/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered with Police Station City Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 30‑4‑2002 at about 5‑00 p.m. Mst. Hina, the complainant was taken away by Mst. Farida from her house and she left her in the house of co‑accused Nadeem Sheikh and there four persons namely Nadeem Sheikh, Masha Allah, Shahid alias Billoo and Haider committed Zina‑bil Jabr with her.
3. It has been contended on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in that there is delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R. that she is a woman and is behind the bars for the last about three months; that she has with her suckling baby; and that she is previous non‑convict.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner is a woman. The first proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C. is attracted to her case. She is behind the bars for the last about three months with suckling baby and she is previous non‑convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find her entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and she is admitted to bail provided she 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 learned trial Court. H.B.T./F‑190/L Bail granted.