MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Zahid, who was charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, following an F.I.R. alleging the abduction of Mst. Nabila Bibi with the intent to commit Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of direct evidence and the alleged victim's own denial of abduction. The Court observed that the alleged victim, Mst. Nabila Bibi, appeared in person and filed an affidavit stating she had not been abducted and that the case was falsely registered by her husband due to matrimonial disputes, evidenced by her prior suits for dissolution of marriage. Finding no direct evidence of Zina and noting the victim's own testimony contradicting the abduction charge, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail application, establishing the principle that where the alleged victim denies the abduction and no direct evidence of the alleged offence exists, the case constitutes a matter for further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the denial of abduction by the alleged victim in an offence of Zina case constitute grounds for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when there is no direct evidence of the commission of Zina?
- Can a prior matrimonial dispute between the complainant and the alleged victim be considered in determining the veracity of an abduction charge during bail proceedings?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Muhammad Zahid petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.No.506 registered on 28-12-2002 in Police Station Lorry Adda, Lahore under sections 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood)
Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Shafqat Ali regarding the abduction of his wife Mst. Nabila Bibi by the petitioner and his co-accused with the intention of committing Zina.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. At the time of arguments on this bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband Shafqat All prior to the registration of this case and recently i.e. On 24-4-2003 she has filed another suit for dissolution of marriage against him. At the time of arguments Mst. Nabila Bibi (who is a co- accused of the present petitioner) appeared before the Court in person and supported the contents of an affidavit to the effect that her husband Shafqat Ali had got registered a false case against Zahid Ali etc. And that Zahid aforesaid had not abducted her nor had committed Zina with her.
5. No direct evidence regarding the commission of offence of Zina is available with the prosecution against the petitioner. So far as the allegation concerning abduction of Mst. Nabila Bibi, is concerned she has herself taken the plea that she had not been abducted by Muhammad Zahid. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the bar that even prior to the registration of the case. Mst. Nabila Bibi had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband and it was due to the said reason that he has got registered this false case against Muhammad Zahid, who had only tried to assist Mst. Nabila Bibi to escape from the clutches of her husband who was subjecting her to cruelty.
6. As no direct evidence is available with the prosecution regarding the offence of Zina and as Mst.
Nabila Bibi has herself taken the plea that she had not been abducted by Muhammad Zahid petitioner, therefore, it becomes a case of further inquiry and hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.