Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ASLAM versus THE STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 10 Bail, under the grant of a Prosecutor's Applicant and his co-accused, by the applicant and his co-accused. He was abducted and tortured. The prosecution's evidence appears to have been interfered with to obtain a controversial statement of the prosecutor's and prosecutor's testimony.

1985 PCr. L J 656

[Lahore]

Before Kcmra Z Mus

tata Bokhari, J

ASLAM‑‑Petitioner

Versus

The STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1270‑B of 1983, decided on 19th October. 1983.

Criminal Procedures Code (V. of 1898)---

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Prosecutrix forcibly abducted and subjected to rape for number of days by petitioner and his co‑accused‑‑Petitioner and his co‑accused appearing to have interfered with prosecution evidence so as to procure conflicting statement of prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses‑‑Prima facie, petitioner, held, guilty of offence‑ Bail declined, in circumstances.

Ch. Nisar A. Saeed for Petitioner.

Altaf Ibrahim for the State.

ORDER

The petitioner and three others are accused of offence under Article 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979. After abducting Mst. Kausar petitioner and his co‑accused illegally detained her and had been committing Zina‑bil‑Jabar with her.

2. It has been argued that the prosecutrix had made more than one conflicting statement and has absolved the petitioner of any liability due to which a case of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of the petitioner. It has also been argued that the prosecution witnesses have sworn in affidavits in which they have not supported the prosecution case.

3. The petitioner and his co‑accused are police constables. It is disclosed by the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 27‑6‑1983 that she was forcibly abducted and was subjected to rape for number of days by the petitioner and his co‑accused. Subsequently petitioner and his co‑accused appear to have interfered with the prosecution evidence so as to procure conflicting statement of the prosecutrix and the prosecution witnesses. Prima facie petitioner is guilty of the offence of Zina‑bil‑Jabar alleged against him. I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This petition is dismissed.

S.G.D Bail declined

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best law firm from Chilas lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.