1995 PLP 231 (MLD)
MULAZIM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 231 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MULAZIM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 231 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 231 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 231 (MLD) (MULAZIM HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)/18‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Eye‑witnesses did not support the prosecution version‑‑‑Case against accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2604/B of 1994, decided on 28th June, 1994. ‑‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)/18‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Eye‑witnesses did not support the prosecution version‑‑‑Case against accused, therefore, was one of further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Akhtar Masood Khan for Petitioner. Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State. A case under section 10(3)/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was registered on the statement of Mst. Zahooran Bibi against the petitioner with Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha, on 8‑3‑1994 vide F.I.R. No.55/94. It is alleged that the petitioner attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix The learned counsel contends that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. He states that the eye‑witnesses Riaz and Muhammad Feroze have sworn affidavits to disclose that no such occurrence took place. The learned State Counsel does not oppose the bail petition in such a situation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that this is undoubtedly a case of further enquiry inasmuch as the eye‑witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C./Duty Magistrate, Shahpur. This petition stands disposed of. . N.H.Q./M‑1749/L Bail granted.