1994 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaista Kaisar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11/10
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.494
Nikah claimed by accused with the alleged abductee had admittedly been duly registered in accordance with law
Six months' delay to registration of the case was not plausibly explamee
Accused's case, therefore, was duly covered by S.497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and he was no longer required by the Police
Judgment & Decree
Shaista Kaisar for Petitioner. M. Javed Bajwa for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.175/93, dated 5-6-1993 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Saddar Depalpur, District Okara. Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 494, P.P.C. were added subsequently to the case in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. It was confirmed by the learned counsel for the State and the Police Officer, present in the Court, that the Nikah of the alleged abductee, namely Sakina Bibi, claimed to have taken place about 8 years before the present occurrence with one Mansha, was not registered, but the Nikah claimed by the petitioner with the alleged abductee was duly registered in accordance with law. Further taking into consideration that there is six months' delay in the registration of the case in question and there is no plausible explanation for the same; and in addition thereto, as the petitioner is no longer A required by the police and he is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal, it is hereby held that petitioner's case is duly covered by the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. At this stage, the Court has been further informed that the alleged abductee has also been arrested in the instant case as a co-accused.
4. Pursuant to what has been stated above, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties in the like B amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Depalpur, District Okara. N.H.Q./M-1788/L Bail granted.