ABDUL RASHEED vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, involving allegations of abduction. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after the trial court dismissed his initial application. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the evidentiary status of the case, specifically the non-recovery of the alleged abductee and the lack of corroborating evidence. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay and that the only evidence linking the applicant to the alleged offense was the uncorroborated statement of a prosecution witness who claimed to have seen the abductee in the company of the accused. Finding that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient material to justify continued incarceration, the Court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for relief. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that in the absence of corroborating evidence and the continued non-recovery of the victim, the applicant's further detention was not warranted.
- Is the non-recovery of an alleged abductee a relevant factor in determining the grant of bail to an accused?
- Does the lack of corroborating evidence regarding an eyewitness account justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the only evidence against an accused is an uncorroborated statement of a prosecution witness?
- Section 11, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' Present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.523 of 2000 registered with Police Station, Gulshan-e- Iqbal under sections 11, 16 Zina Hudood Ordinance. The applicant moved bail application before the trial Court but without success, hence this bail application before this Court.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that complainant Nazar Hussain lodged report in which he has stated that Mst. Shamshad Bibi has been abducted for the purposes of committing Zina in between 0800 hours to 1600 hours on 4-10-2000 when she had left for bungalow where she was working as maid servant. F.I.R. Was lodged on 11-10-2000 with explanation that complainant party was looking for the girl on their own and after losing of the hopes, the F.I.R. Is being registered and complainant came to know that applicant along with his companions had abducted the girl.
3. ' Present applicant is said to have been arrested on 29-10-2000 while co-accused Abdul Hague, Siddique, Yasin and. Mst. Shehnaz are shown as absconders in challan sheet.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no evidence, against present applicant as till today abductee Mst. Shamshad has not been recovered and the only evidence against the present applicant is that one P.W. Nazar Hussain has seen Mst. Shamshad in the company of accused and he has further prayed that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the State raised no objection by contending that the prosecutrix/abductee has not been recovered and there is no evidence against the present applicant except the version of P.W. Nazar Hussain who has seen Mst. Shamshad in the company of accused.
6. ' I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and seen the police papers and have examined the material available on record. Even the abductee Mst. Shamshad has not been recovered till today and at the moment there is no evidence against the present applicant except the version of P.W. Nazar Hussain which goes uncorroborated and prima facie the applicant has been able to make out a good case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
7. ' This bail application stands disposed of along with listed application.