KHALID IQBAL vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 236/2004, wherein the petitioner was accused of abducting the victim, Mst. Mehwish, and committing Zina-bil-Jabr. The petitioner sought bail after his initial application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution case relied on the FIR, which specifically nominated the petitioner, and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein she implicated the petitioner for both abduction and sexual assault, alleging coercion and duress. The Court considered the nature of the offences under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, noting that they are heinous and fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the police investigation had established the petitioner's guilt, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed in limine.
- Does an offence under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation has found them guilty of a heinous offence?
- What is the evidentiary weight of a victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in bail proceedings?
- Section 10, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Instant petition for post-arrest bail has been moved in case' FIR No. 236/2004 dated 2.4.2004 registered u/S. 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Mughalpura District, Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Jameel brother of the victim Mst. Mehwish.
2. According to the story narrated in the FIR Khalid Iqbal accused/petitioner used to come in the house of the complainant and in the meantime he developed illicit relations with Mst. Mehwish.
When this fact came into the knowledge of the complainant side the accused was allegedly forbidden to come to their house. On 30.3.2004 when said Mst. Mehwish victim did riot come back to the house from school, on inquiry it transpired that she was abducted by the accused/petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Accordingly, the abductee was recovered and the accused/petitioner was arrested in the case. He applied for his bail after arrest, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge Lahore, on the ground that the petitioner/accused is nominated in the FIR. He has been attributed a specific role of abduction of the victim and statement of the abductee was got recorded u'/S. 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has implicated the accused/petitioner in the commission of offence u/S. 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enf. of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979). Through her statement she has stated that accused/petitioner has been committing zina bil jabr with her against her consent and she also got her thumb-impression on blank papers under duress and coercion.
4. As the offences u/S. 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enf. of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) are heinous offences, which fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and the police during the investigation has found the petitioner guilty so, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Instant petition is dismissed in limine.