2002 PLP 3741 (YLR)
Hakeem MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 3741 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | Hakeem MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 3741 (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 2002 PLP 3741 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 3741 (YLR) (Hakeem MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he developed some intimacy with wife of complainant who left her house and was seen in company of accused alongwith three others‑‑‑Matter was not reported to Police for four days and alleged abductee was not recovered from custody of accused when he was arrested‑‑‑Only a general allegation was made against accused and offence allegedly committed by accused did not attract prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C.‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Jamshed Iqbal Khakwani for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.16‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he developed some intimacy with wife of complainant who left her house and was seen in company of accused alongwith three others‑‑‑Matter was not reported to Police for four days and alleged abductee was not recovered from custody of accused when he was arrested‑‑‑Only a general allegation was made against accused and offence allegedly committed by accused did not attract prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C.‑‑ Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Petitioner. Jamshed Iqbal Khakwani for the State. The petitioner Hakeem Muhammad Ramzan has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.188 of 2001 registered at Police Station B‑Division, Rahim Yar Khan on 23‑6-2001 for offences under sections 16/10(3), of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. During investigation section 10(3) of the Ordinance was deleted.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he had developed some intimacy with Mst. Parveen wife of the complainant who left her house on 19‑6‑2001 and was seen in the company of the petitioner alongwith three others.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 12‑10‑2001 and is behind the bars since then.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for four days and Mst. Parveen was riot recovered from the custody of the petitioner when he was arrested. There is only a general allegation by the husband of the abductee about four persons. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause of section
497. Cr.P.C. Therefore, relying on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑1403/L Bail granted.