ARSHAD AHMAD vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from F.I.R. No.224 of 2004 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Ahmad Nagar, District Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the addition of section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and the allegations of abduction and Zina. The court held that since the victim fully implicated the petitioner and the case fell under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, which attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. The court accordingly dismissed the bail petition and directed expeditious trial since the challan had already been submitted.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does a case falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle the accused to bail at the pre-trial stage?
- What is the effect of the victim's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating the accused in a bail matter?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 294, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' This is a post-arrest bail petition in case F.I.R. No.224 of 2004 dated 11-7-2004 registered under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Ahmad Nagar District, Gujranwala.
2. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, which was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide order dated 18-8-2004 dismissed the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R.
The accused/petitioner Arshad Ahmad and the alleged victim were arrested and challaned in a case registered at Police Station Haripur in N.-W.F.P. And were convicted on 15-4-2004 under section 294, P.P.C. And lateron the petitioner/accused was arrested in this case by the police of Ahmad Nagar Police Station in the above titled case registered under section 16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 and the case of the petitioner does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Story of the prosecution is unbelievable and the petitioner is not previous convict. Further contended that the petitioner/accused is in the judicial lock-up since 13-7-2004 and no more required by the police.
4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the instant bail petition and submits that as far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned, an application was submitted to the S.H.O. Police Station Ahmad Nagar for registration of criminal case and thereafter the complainant submitted the application to the D.P.O. Gujranwala on 15-4-2003 without any positive result. Consequently he moved an application to the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala under sections 22-A and 22-B and the case, as registered upon the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and the delay thereby is not attributable to the complainant. Further contends that the victim during her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has fully implicated the petitioner/accused with regard to her abduction as well as commission of Zina and now the police has also added section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 after which case of the petitioner/accused falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he thus is not entitled for the concession of bail at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During her statement Mst. Naseem Bibi victim has fully implicated the petitioner/accused and his co-accused Muhammad Amjad, who is still at large. Section 10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 has also been added and challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Case of the accused/petitioner prima facie falls under section 10(3)
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, which falls in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In this view of the matter the petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail at this stage, the same is hereby rejected.
7. As the challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall be decided expeditiously.