MLD 1997

1997 PLP 3221 (MLD)

IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.924/B of 1996, decided on 26th November, 1996.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1997 PLP 3221 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J
Parties IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 3221 (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 1997 PLP 3221 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Aqil Mirza, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 3221 (MLD) (IMRAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Rafique and Mehr Naeem for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance (VIl of 1979), S. 12‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner did non support prosecution case‑‑‑Accused were students of 9th Class and were less than 16 years of age‑‑‑Accused were granted bail, in circumstances. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 377‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance (VIl of 1979), S. 12‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Report of Chemical Examiner did non support prosecution case‑‑‑Accused were students of 9th Class and were less than 16 years of age‑‑‑Accused were granted bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique and Mehr Naeem for Petitioners. Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Rahim for the State. Bail is sought in a case registered under section 12 of Ordinance 7 of 1979 and section 377, P.P.C. The three accused persons are allowed to have committed sodomy with Muhammad Ajmal who is son of the complainant.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that all the petitioners are students studying in 9th class and they are less than 16 years of age. Similarly, Muhammad Ajmal with whom sodomy is alleged to have been committed is student of 9th class. It is further submitted that the swabs sent to the Chemical Examiner have not been found to stained with semen. According to the learned counsel it is a case of further inquiry as to whether the act of sodomy has been committed or not. The fathers of all the three accused persons are present in Court. On the last date of hearing they had offered to go to the village of the complainant for the purpose of seeking forgiveness from the father of Muhammad Ajmal, even though, according to them, the offence has not been committed by' their sons. Muhammad Taqi complainant alongwith his son is present in Court. He states that the fathers of the petitioners had sought forgiveness from him in a room. He further states that forgiveness should have been sought in some open assembly, so that people of the village could have known this fact. In open Court today, the fathers of all the three accused persons have sought forgiveness from Muhammad Taqi as also from his son. In order to restore the honour of Muhammad Taqi and his son as a condition for grant of bail it is directed in the interest of justice, that the fathers of all the accused persons will go after Zohr Prayers in the Jamia Masjid of village Nanakpur on 27‑11‑1996 and offer apology, as desired by the complainant. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that report of chemical examiner does not support the prosecution case and the petitioners are students of 9th Class, this application is allowed. The petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Illaqa Magistrate, Pakpattan. Nothing said herein shall prejudice the case of either party on merits. H.B.T /I‑27/L Bail granted.