ABDUL MAJEED vs STATE
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Abdul Majeed, who is accused in FIR No. 134/2004 for an offense under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner forcibly committed zina-bil-jabr with the complainant, Mst. Naseem Mai. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of innocence, false implication, and the fact that the alleged eye-witnesses—the father-in-law and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix—had sworn affidavits stating the occurrence did not take place. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that two separate investigating agencies had opined that the matter was questionable. The Court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated since September 6, 2004, held that keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period was unjustified given the evidentiary contradictions presented by the eye-witness affidavits. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that conflicting witness statements and investigative findings can constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail pending trial.
- Can bail be granted when eye-witnesses have sworn affidavits contradicting the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
- Does the opinion of multiple investigating agencies favoring the accused constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the detention of an accused for an indefinite period justifiable when there are significant evidentiary doubts in the prosecution's case?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Petitioner Abdul Majeed has moved this post arrest bail petition in case FIR No, 134/2004 dated 6.6.2004 u/S. 10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Kot Addu District, Muzaffargarh on the complaint of Mst. Naseem Mai.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that the complainant/prosecutrix namely Mst. Naseem Mai who is a married woman having four children, on 5.6.2004 at Aserwela was caught hold by the petitioner/accused while cutting gross in the fields and he forcibly committed zina-bil-jabr with her and on hue and cry PWs came at the place of occurrence and the accused/petitioner ran away.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence Muhammad Yar father in law of the prosecutrix and Ahmad Bakhsh real maternal uncle of the prosecutrix have sworn affidavits that occurrence did not take place. Even two investigating agencies after their thorough investigation have opined that matter is being put forth on the mercy of the Court.
Further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 6.9.2004 and he is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Challan in this case has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner is behind the bars since 6.9.2004 and even the eye-witnesses have sworn their affidavits that the occurrence did not take place. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.