ABDUL MAJEED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Majeed, who was accused of committing Zina-bil-Jabr under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether, given the evidentiary circumstances and the duration of the petitioner's incarceration, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses, specifically the father-in-law and maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, had submitted affidavits stating that the alleged occurrence did not take place. Furthermore, the Court noted that two separate investigating agencies had opined that the matter was questionable. Considering that the petitioner had been incarcerated since September 6, 2004, and that the trial was pending, the Court held that the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties. The principle established is that where eye-witnesses retract their statements via affidavit and investigation agencies cast doubt on the prosecution's case, continued incarceration is unjustified.
- Does the submission of affidavits by eye-witnesses denying the occurrence constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when investigating agencies have expressed doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
- Is the grant of bail appropriate when the prosecution's primary witnesses have retracted their statements?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
' Petitioner Abdul Majeed has moved this post-arrest bail petition in case F.I.R. No.134 of 2004 dated 6-6-2004 under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, Kot Addu District, MuzafTargarh on the complaint of Mst. Naseem Mai.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. 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 grass in the fields and he forcibly committed Zina-bilJabr with her and on hue and cry P.Ws. 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.