Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR VS Respondent: THE STATE and another-
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR vs THE STATE and another- Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 323 of 1991 Date of Judgment:1991-06-09 Reported As: 1991 P Cr. L J 1679 Result: Order accordingly
Judgment ORDER The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are that Mst. Shamim Akhtar was arrested in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, who, while granting the bail, imposed the condition for furnishing surety bond by a person within the prohibited degree, hence this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition has been imposed without any legal justification. No one has appeared for the State to oppose this petition. 3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. There was no legal compulsion for imposing the condition for furnishing surety bond by a person within the prohibited degree. I am afraid; that this condition may frustrate the very object of grant of bail to the woman accused/petitioner. So the impugned condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the petitioner will be released on furnishing surety bond by a person of her choice. Disposed of accordingly.