1999 P Cr (PLP)
SHARIF and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | SHARIF and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 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 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (SHARIF and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/11‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Two eye‑witnesses in the case had submitted affidavits testifying that the incident alleged by the prosecution did not take place‑‑‑Case of accused, therefore, did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. and the same required further inquiry‑‑‑Accused were admitted to bail accordingly. Muhammad Rafique for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tariq Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners. Muhammad Rafique for the State. The petitioners are involved in a case F.I.R. No.84 of 1997 lodged by one Jummay Khan alias Sarwar registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that two eye‑witnesses stated in their affidavits that incident did not take place. Even one of the victim Mst. Khedja also gave affidavit that the incident did not take place. In the interest of justice and fair play vide order, dated 21‑8‑1997, Investigating Officer was directed to find out as to whether the affidavits are genuine or not? Investigating Officer is present in Court and states that the affidavits are genuine and have been rightly recorded.
3. The learned State Counsel opposed the bail petition strongly and stated that statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. shall be given preference over the affidavits.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. Shah Ali, and Abdul Sattar have given affidavits that incident did not take place, therefore, the case of thef petitioner does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thel case of the petitioners becomes that of further inquiry.
5. In view of these circumstances, the petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand E only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Deputy Magistrate, Sahiwal. N.H.Q./S‑273/L Bail allowed.