1985 M I (PLP)
RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 M I (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J, |
| Parties | RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 M I (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 M I (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 M I (PLP) (RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yahya Saleem for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 24th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10/13/18--Brothel house--Accused allegedly running brothel house--Other two accused women apprehended during raid bailed out- Petitioner in judicial lock-up for 4i months
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner is involved in a case registered against her and two others under the provisions of section 10/13/18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. The said case was registered, vide F.I.R. No. 167, dated 11-7-1984 by the Police Station, Saddar Faisalabad. The allegation against the petitioner is that she is running brothel house and provides women for the commission of Zina. Allegedly on 11-7-1984 the petitioner was seen receiving Rs. 300 Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Rafi as a consideration for making one Surraya Begum and Kulsoom Begum available for Zina by the aforesaid Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Rafi. A raid was conducted and two women, namely, Surraya Begum and Kulsoom Begum were taken into custody. It may be stated here that both of these women are mother and daughter. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is false and in fact Zina had not been committed. The Investigating Office informed me that both these women were not related to the petitioner and at least with one of them the Zina had been committed. The vaginal swabs taken proved that they were stained with semen. On the other hand the learned counsel stated that such discovery of semen was result of the commission of sexual intercourse by the husband of the aforesaid women and not by Javaid Iqbal sad Muhammad Rafi. According to the learned counsel, such fact was substantiated by the husband of the said women.
3. The learned counsel further contended that since both the aforesaid women have already been released on bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail, because she is in judicial lock-up for the last 4) months. Considering entire case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, I hereby admit the petitioner to bail provided she furnishes security in the sun of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad. A.A. Bail allowed.