1991 PLP 2080 (MLD)
KHADIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 2080 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHADIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 2080 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 2080 (MLD)?
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: 1991 PLP 2080 (MLD) (KHADIM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian MA. Sabir for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 364-A & 377
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1370), S. 12
Accused was below the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence; he was in jail for about seven months
Judgment & Decree
Mian MA. Sabir for Petitioner. Shahbaz Saeed Sajid for the State. This is an application for grant of bail to Khadim, petitioner, in a case under section 364-A/377, P.P.C. read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Shadbagh, vide F.I.R. No.302/90, dated 29-11-1990.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner deceitfully took away Muhammad Adeel in a Dera of Muhammad Iqbal and committed sodomy upon him on 29-11-1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was below the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence; and that he is in Jail since 12-12-1990. Conversely, the learned counsel' for the State assisted by tile learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application on the ground that there is also a charge of abduction/kidnapping punishable under section 364-A, Cr.P.C. and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that there is sufficient evidence collected by the police in proof of charge against the petitioner.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to release the petitioner on bail for the reasons that from the certificate issued by the Medical Board constituted for the examination of the age of the petitioner and from copy of the birth certificate shown to me as well, the petitioner was below the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence; that he is in Jail for about 7 months and that even in cases punishable with death or transportation for life, an accused below the age of 16 years can be released on bail. I do not see any compelling circumstance to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner more particularly when he is in the Jail for the last seven months and bail cannot/should not be withheld as a punishment.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, this application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Lahore. M.BA./K-350/L Bail granted.