Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2001 YLR 2579
Court / Jurisdiction: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Parties: MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATE
This judicial decision was delivered by the LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE. The matter involves proceedings between MUHAMMAD ASLAM and STATE, officially reported as 2001 YLR 2579. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
2001 Y L R 2579
2001 Y L R 2579
[Lahore]
Before Nasim Sikandar, J
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2014‑B of 2000, decided on 21st September, 2000.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)‑‑ Bail, grant of‑‑‑Accused was declared innocent in the investigation conducted by the police‑‑‑Delay of six months in registering case against the accused had not properly been explained and there was no direct evidence/witness of the alleged occurrence‑‑ Accused was on judicial remand and the challan had not been submitted‑‑‑Completion of the trial being not in sight, the accused could not be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Rana Muhammad Asif Saeed for Petitioner.
Muhammad Naseem Rashid for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st September, 2000.
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 7‑9‑2000 in case F.I.R. No.122 :of 2000, dated 5‑7‑2000 registered at Police Station, Makhdoompur Peboran District Khanevxal under section 10(3), Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. According to the complainant, the accused forcibly committed illegal intercourse with her while she was out in a field to answer the call of nature. It was further alleged that she remained silent for six months on account of fear but could no more hold the same inasmuch she had become pregnant on account of the said incident.
3. For the petitioner it is stated that the delay of six months is not explained; that first investigation has declared the petitioner/accused to be innocent while the second has not been finalized so far, that there is no eye‑witness to the alleged incident nor the submissions made even if subsequently proved to be correct answer the requirements of section 8 of the Ordinance VII of 1979. Also it is claimed that since no recovery of the knife etc., was made from the petitioner his case‑ was that of further inquiry in the fact and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the State however, opposes the prayer.
5. After considering the submissions made at the bar, I will agree that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He has been declared innocent in the investigation so far conducted by the police, the delay of six months is not properly explained nor there is any direct evidence/witness of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is on judicial remand and the challan has not so far been submitted. The completion of trial not being in sight the petitioner cannot be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period.
Accordingly this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑828/L Bail granted.