2003 PLP 2548 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2548 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2548 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2548 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2548 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(3)/16
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.380
Further inquiry-- Case against the accused prima facie seemed to be of elopement as he was not alleged to have committed Zina with wife of the complainant
Whether the accused had joined hands with co-accused in commission of the offence, was a question of further inquiry
Case against the accused being covered under subsection (2) of 5.497, Cr. P. C., he was allowed bail. Riaz Hussain Maimni for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Fazal Rauf Joya for Petitioner. Riaz Hussain Maimni for the State. Through this application under section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner Muhammad Farooq seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.378 registered on 26-11-2002 with Police Station City Pak pattan under sections 16/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) read with section 380, P.P.C.
2. The brief allegations' mentioned in the F.I.R. are that petitioner and his co accused used to visit the house of the complainant. Muhammad Ramzan co-accused took Rs.12,000 as loan from the complainant and promised that he will return the same after one month. On the settled date, complainant had sent his wife for obtaining the amount which was taken by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused, but she did not come back. Complainant on suspicion went to the house of Muhammad Ramzan co-accused and came to know that his wife was abducted by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Irshad and Mst. Asia. After about 1-1/2 months when she came back, told that she was deceitfully taken away by all the four accused and Muhammad Ramzan had also been committing Zina with her during this period besides pressurizing her to contract marriage with him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution story is doubtful and the F.I.R. has been lodged with the delay of four months wherein the petitioner is not alleged to have committed Zina with the alleged victim. Further contends that the petitioner has been involved falsely in the present case in order to make it a case of abduction, which at the most was a case of elopement.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the petitioner on various Wounds.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their assistance. From the. bare perusal of the F.I.R. it prima face seems to be a case of elopement. The petitioner is not alleged to have committed Zina with Mst. Waziran, wife of the complainant, Whether he had joined hands with Muhammad Ramzan co-accused in the commission of the offence is a question of further inquiry, hence, the case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) or section 497, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge. Pakpattan. H.B.T./M-1794/L Bail granted.