1994 P Cr (PLP)
AHSAN SHABBIR BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHSAN SHABBIR BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 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 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (AHSAN SHABBIR BUKHARI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377
Victim according to the doctor had been subjected to sodomy
Delay of three days had been explained in the F.I.R.
Semen could not be detected after three days due to the passing of stools
Sufficient material was available on record to prima facie connect the accused with the crime and reasonable grounds existed to believe his involvement in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner. Malik Suleman Awan for the State. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993. The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 377, P.P.C. and section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No .215, dated 7-8-1993, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that he alongwith his co-accused committed unnatural offence with the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter was reported after three days delay which remained unexplained. The medical report does not support the prosecution case as the Chemical Examiner did not find any semen in the anal swabs of the victim. No blood-stained clothes were taken into possession which could have proved the prosecution case. In the end, he submitted that section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, is not attracted to the facts of this case, at the most section 377, P.P.C. could be attracted but that too could not be proved in view of the lack of the evidence, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. He has placed reliance on P L D 1967 SC 363, P L D 1965 FSC 404, 1985 S C M R 1822 and 1986 S C M R 533.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application on the ground that the doctor observed redness on the anus of the victim and had opined that he has been subjected to sodomy. He further contended that the matter was reported A after a delay of three days which was explained in the F.I.R. itself and the semen could not be detected after three days due to the passing of the stools, hence the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is sufficient material on the record to connect the petitioner prima facie with the crime in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the State mentioned above, hence there exist reasonable grounds to B believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, so this bail application is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-542/L Bail refused.