1993 P Cr (PLP)
IJAZ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IJAZ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 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: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (IJAZ and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of -Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12
Trial Court after recording complete evidence in the case had gone on, leave and the accused had directly moved ' High Court for bail on the grounds that no case for conviction was made out and delay was likely to occur in the disposal of the case
Held, High Court should not prejudge the whole matter at, bail stage and that it was for the Trial Court to decide whether the case was of acquittal or conviction
Bail application was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Mansab Awan for the Complainant. Sarfraz Ahmad Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 19th April, 1993. The petitioners who are involved in case F.I.R. No.232, dated 9-11-1992, under section 377, P.P.C. read with section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Wan Bhachran, District Mianwali, seek to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners is that they committed sodomy with Riaz Ahmad, complainant.
3. The petitioners without moving bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the trial is pending have moved this bail application on the ground that after recording the evidence of the witnesses no case for conviction is made out, so the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. He also submitted that the trial Court has gone on leave that is why he has approached this Court for bail because of, the delay which will occur in the disposal of the case though the complete evidence has been recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On merits, he deposed that there are certain discrepancies between the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence which makes the prosecution case further doubtful and the petitioners are entitled to bail because they are behind the bars since 25-11-1992 in a case which was registered against them on 5-11-1992.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer and the complainant's counsel opposed this bail application on the ground that after the conclusion of the evidence, the petitioners should have moved the learned trial Court in this regard, if so advised. They cannot come directly for bail to this Court. He next contended that the grounds taken by the petitioners relate to the appreciation of evidence which is within the domain of the learned trial Judge and this Court while deciding the bail application would not deprive the Court concerned of its legal right to assess and analyse the evidence as and when the occasion arises.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find, there is substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant that this Court should not prejudge the whole matter at a bail stage. It is for the trial Court to decide whether the case is of acquittal or conviction and this exercise cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. No ground for bail is made out. This petition stands disposed of. N.H.Q./I-82/L Bail refused.