1986 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SURRAYIA Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J |
| Parties | Mst. SURRAYIA Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) 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: Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SURRAYIA Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal Cheema for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Arts. 10, 13, 14 18--Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 &. 4--Bail, grant of--Raid in hotel room--Accused found in semi-naked position with co,- accused--Bottle of liquor recovered from the room--No body from public made to join raid--Provisions of Order 1979 applied indiscriminately--Other persons rounded up in raid, allowed bail by trial Court--Case of accused found at par with those already released on bail--Allegations levelled against accused called for further inquiry--Bail was allowed in circumstances. Najam-uz-Zaman, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
On the night between 13/14th of March, 1986, a raid was conducted at Faletti s Hotel, Lahore by a party comprising of Nasrullah Khan, M.I.C., Lahore, Marawwat Ali Shah, A.S.P., Station House Officer of Police Stations Qila Gujjar Singh, Civil Lines and Race Course, an A.S.I. and four constables. Mst. Surrayia, petitioner in this petition, and Ayyaz Hafiz, petitioner in Criminal Misc. 876/13-86 were arrested. Both of them were found in semi-naked position in Room No. 44 of the hotel. On enquiry by the police, Surrayia admitted to have come to the hotel through Anwar Baig, Hotel Booking Clerk for having 'good time'. The police also found a bottle of liquor from the room.
2. On the complaint of Azmat Ullah S.H.O., case under Articles 10, 13, 14 and 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Articles. 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was registered against the petitioners at Police Station, Qila Gujjar Singh.
3. The petitioners filed two separate applications for bail. These were dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, by order dated 24-3-1986. Both of them have now filed separate petitions in this court (Criminal Misc. Nos. 845/B-86 and Criminal Misc. 876/13-86).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case was false. No private person was made to join the raiding party. The counsel for Ayyaz Hafeez further argued that it would be highly improbable that the petitioner, who was alleged to be semi-naked with a woman in the bed would open the door of the room.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners were arrested in order to make the raid successful.
6. Counsel finally submitted that the case of the petitioners was at par with those who have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.
7. I also heard the learned A.A.-G., who opposed the bail application. He submitted that the petitioners were accused of offence against morality. He further submitted that the cases fell within the purview of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. It is correct that nobody from the public was made to join the raid although it was carried out in a hotel. The fact that number of articles of Hudood Ordinance have been applied indiscriminately shows that the police was not sure upto the last minute as to what was their precise case.
9. There appears to be good deal of force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the present petitioners is at par with those who have been allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge.
10. In any case, the allegations levelled against the petitioners call for further inquiry. I, therefore, admit both of them to bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 (Ten thousand) each, with one surety, each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner City, Lahore. S.A. Bail allowed.