1986 PLP 2919 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2919 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2919 (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 1986 PLP 2919 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2919 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Unnatural lust‑‑Victim boy taken by force from one latrine to other and subjected to unnatural lust‑‑Accused in custody for about one year‑‑Complainant and victim implicating accused‑‑Statutory period of two years having not expired, accused, held, was not entitled to bail in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. M.I. Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Unnatural lust‑‑Victim boy taken by force from one latrine to other and subjected to unnatural lust‑‑Accused in custody for about one year‑‑Complainant and victim implicating accused‑‑Statutory period of two years having not expired, accused, held, was not entitled to bail in circumstances. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. M.I. Memon, A.A.‑G. for the State. O RDER The report of the incident was lodged by Muhammad Iqbal, father of Muhammad Imran wherein he has stated that the boy was subjected to sexual intercourse by force by the present applicant. A charge under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was framed against the present applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 would not be applicable as it is not alleged that the applicant has kidnapped the boy. This contention has no force. The boy Muhammad Imran has been examined by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. and he has stated that he was taken away by force from one latrine to another latrine and unnatural act was committed upon him. The application has been moved on the ground of delay. The applicant is in custody for about one year. As the punishment provided under section 12 of the Zina Hudood Ordinance is death and the period of two years has not expired, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail on the ground of delay. The application of the present applicant was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on merits. The complainant and his son have implicated the present applicant. The application has no force. The same is dismissed. S. A. Bail refused.