SADAQAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 30/03 registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the pendency of a jactitation of marriage suit and the statement of the alleged abductee supporting the marriage with the petitioner, coupled with the delay in the commencement of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., and granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has been in detention for a considerable period without the commencement of trial, and material on record—such as the alleged victim's statement supporting a marriage—creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not commenced and further inquiry into his guilt is warranted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the pendency of a jactitation of marriage suit and a statement by the alleged abductee supporting a marriage with the petitioner constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Can delay in the commencement of the trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail to an accused incarcerated for a prolonged period?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,30/03, dated 2-4-2003 registered under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at Police Station Makhdoompur Pahoran District Khanewal.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case due to the mala fide of a complainant; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that Mst. Zahida Parveen alleged abductee is the allegedly wedded wife of the petitioner; that she has already filed -a suit for jactitation of marriage against one Sajjad. It is lastly contended that case of the petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned State Counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And the offences complained fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That Mst. Zahida Parveen is legally wedded wife of one Sajjad and not of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the extraordinary concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
5. Record reveals that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And allegations of abduction and section 10 of the aforesaid Ordinance are levelled against him yet the fact remains that Mst. Zahida Parveen has already filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against said Sajjad which is still pending for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has drawn my attention towards the statement of Mst. Zahida Parveen recorded in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal on 7-8-2003 wherein she has categorically deposed that she is wife of petitioner. This fact has also been find mention in the order of the learned Sessions Judge of even date. The petitioner is stated to be behind the bars since 15-9-2003 and the trial against the petitioner has still not been commenced. The speedy trial of the accused petitioner is his recognized right and in case of delay in trial the accused petitioner is justified for asking the relief of his post-arrest bail. In view of the above discussion, there are sufficient reasons to believe that case of the petitioner needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. His further detention in the judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose. The petitioner is held entitled for the concession of bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.