1986 P Cr (PLP)
LAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | LAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 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: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (LAL‑‑Petitioner Versus SAID RASOOL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashir for Petitioner.
- A.G. Tariq Ch. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail‑‑Application for cancellation‑‑Case against accused depending on genuineness or otherwise of Nikahnama‑‑Specimen handwriting of witnesses to Nikah and Nikah Khawan being Finger Print Bureau for comparison and whole matter depended upon opinion of Finger Print Expert‑‑If such opinion favourable to complainant, he was at liberty to move a fresh petition before Court which granted bail in first instance‑‑Bail maintained.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497(5)‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Bail‑‑Application for cancellation‑‑Case against accused depending on genuineness or otherwise of Nikahnama‑‑Specimen handwriting of witnesses to Nikah and Nikah Khawan being Finger Print Bureau for comparison and whole matter depended upon opinion of Finger Print Expert‑‑If such opinion favourable to complainant, he was at liberty to move a fresh petition before Court which granted bail in first instance‑‑Bail maintained. Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashir for Petitioner. A.G. Tariq Ch. for Respondents. Muhammad Bashir Mirza for the State. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this case that Sultan Ahmad and Muhammad Feroze, who are alleged to be the witnesses of Nikah, have by way of sworn affidavits, denied t have witnessed the Nikah and that Matiur Rehman, who is alleged to have performed the Nikah, has also by way of sworn affidavit, denied to have performed the same, has been categorically denied by learner counsel for the respondents. According to him not only both the witnesses had signed the Nikahnama, but the Nikah Khwan had also signed the Nikahnama as well and had filled the columns of the same in his own hand. That being the position, the whole case depends upon the genuineness or otherwise of the Nikahnama. The A.S.I. states that he has received this information and is going to move a Magistrate fc having specimen handwritings of the three persons referred to above for sending the same for comparison to the Finger Print Bureau. Since the whole matter mainly depends upon the opinion of the Finger Print Expert, the A.S.I. is directed to expedite the matter. In the meantime, it is of no use to keep the petition alive. If the opinion is favourable to the petitioner, he may move a fresh petition before the Court which granted bail in the first instance. This petition stands disposed of. M.Y.H. Order accordingly.