MUHAMMAD YAR versus THE STATE

Section 2302 / Case 34 The second case, according to the prosecution, was a premature homicide, but the defense is requesting that the accused kill the two while they are looking at the deceased in a compromise with his sister. Is that the defense can accept a sudden provocation request. Prosecutors acknowledge that there were illicit relationships between the two victims and the nature of the injuries sustained by the use of such weapons, suggesting that the two accused were murdered while the other two offenders were commissioned. Had decided that two of the four accused who killed the victim came up empty. Proving that the killings were not carried out and the charges were set aside and instead they were sentenced under Section 304, Part I, the preventive code, and sentenced to seven years in prison. Was. Doubt and evil were done

1987 M L D 2682

[Lahore]

Before Muhmmad Munir Khan,

TALIB HUSSAIN--Petitioner

versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1386-B of 1987, decided on 13th June, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

---S.497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/11--Bail, grant of--First information report lodged with a delay of two month s--Co-accused whose case was identical with that of accused already on bail--Accused admitted to bail in circumstances.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob Sidhu for Petitioner.

Ashraf Bokhari for the State.

ORDER

This is an application for grant of bail to Talib Hussain petitioner in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadbd'd) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Samundari, vide FIR No.283 dated 21-8-1984.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 11 others abducted Mst. Rukhsana and Mst. Farzana, the daughters of Nazir Ahmad on 24-6-1984 and thereafter, committed Zina-bil-Jabar with them. As far the petitioner it has been alleged that he not only abducted two girls but also committed Zina-bil-Jabar with Mst. Rukhsana.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 11 co-accused are on bail and that the petitioner was not a proclaimed offender. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that there is a delay of two months in lodging the FIR; that the 11 co-accused whose case is identical with that of the petitioner are already on bail; that the DSP. Karachi has issued a certificate to the effect that the petitioner/ Head Constable Talib Hussain remained on duty till 8-1-1987 which prima facie shows that he was not an absconder.

5. For what has been said above, without making expression of opinion lest it may prejudice the merits of the case, I am of the view that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out. He, is B therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Samundari.

M.Y.H/T-20/L Bail granted.

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 advocate from Kohistan lawyer

Lawyers Directory Listing

Find a Lawyer

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

MUHAMMAD YAR versus THE STATE

Find a Lawyer Near You