2004 PLP 1955 (YLR)
AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1955 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam Ali Malik, J |
| Parties | AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1955 (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 2004 PLP 1955 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam Ali Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1955 (YLR) (AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑ Alleged victim had filed an affidavit in Trial Court to the effect that accused neither was present at the time of occurrence nor had committed Zina with her and that name of accused was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding‑‑‑Alleged victim also had no objection to grant of bail to accused‑‑ Mother of victim who was prosecution witness and other female witness who according to prosecution story had reached the place of occurrence had also stated that accused was not present at the place of occurrence and his name was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding‑‑‑Case against accused was of further inquiry in, view of, said affidavit and statements of prosecution witnesses, and accused was entitled to concession of bail. 1997 PCr.LJ 1107 ref. Muhammad Aslam Malik for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam Malik for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2002. Ahmad petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.229 of 2002, dated 20‑10‑2002 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 registered with Police Station, Dhullay, District Gujranwala.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Mst. Gulshan alleging that Mehboob alias Bini had taken her along to his house where three boys namely Ahmad petitioner, Jameel alias Ballo and Rafique Masih alias Klialifa were present and all of them committed Zina with her and also snatched tier golden ear rings and also an amount of Rs.2,000 in cash from her mother.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala Mst. Gulshan alleged victim had filed affidavit to the effect that Ahmad petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence nor he had committed Zina with her and that his name was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding. She has no objection to the grant of bail to him. Similarly Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W./mother of the victim and also Mst. Rehana Bangalan, P.W. who had also reached the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution story Lad filed affidavits before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In here affidavit Mst. Rehana Bangalan had stated that at the time of occurrence Ahmad petitioner was not present and his name was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding. Mst. Inayat Bibi in her affidavit had deposed that at the time of occurrence Ahmad petitioner was not present.
5. All the three P.Ws. mentioned above i.e. Mst. Gulshan, Mst. Rehana and Mst. Inayat Bibi are present before this Court even today and have supported the contents of their affidavits.
6. In view of the affidavits of the P.Ws. mentioned above, including the victim it is clearly a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner. In the light of the authority 1997 PCr.LJ 1107, the petitioner is clearly entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to .the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./A‑84/L Bail granted.