SADAQAT HUSSAIN vs STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 30/03 registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry, given the pending suit for jactitation of marriage and the statement of the alleged abductee claiming to be the wife of the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail as his case falls under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, considering the statement of the alleged abductee supporting the marriage, the prolonged incarceration without commencement of the trial, and the right to a speedy trial. The key principle laid down is that where circumstances and statements of the alleged victim raise sufficient doubt regarding the guilt, and the trial is delayed, the accused becomes entitled to further inquiry and bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged victim's statement supports a marriage with the accused and the trial has not commenced?
- Does a pending suit for jactitation of marriage constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is delay in the commencement of a trial a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- 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 FIR No, 30/03 dated 2.4.2003 registered under Sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) 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 malafide of the complainant; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that Mst. Zahida Parveen alleged abductee is the legally 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 sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned state counsel opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR 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 FIR 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 Skjad 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 sub-section (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 sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in he like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.