KHALID IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Khalid Iqbal, in relation to F.I.R. No. 236 of 2004, registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail after arrest, given the allegations of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The court examined the record, noting that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and that the victim had recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, implicating the petitioner in the offence and alleging coercion. The court held that the offences charged are heinous and fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as the police investigation found the petitioner guilty, the court determined he did not deserve the concession of bail at this stage. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that bail is not appropriate when a prima facie case exists for heinous offences falling under the prohibitory clause.
- 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 bail appropriate where the accused is nominated in the F.I.R. and the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicates the accused in a heinous offence?
- 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 F.I.R. No,236 of 2004 dated 2-4-2004 registered under sections 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 victim Mst. Mehwish.
2. According to the story narrated in the F.I.R. 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 not 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on the ground that the petitioner/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. He has been attributed a specific role of abduction of the victim and statement of the abductee was got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Wherein she has implicated the accused/ petitioner in the commission of offence under sectiond 10/11 Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 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 under sections 10/ 11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH alias MAQSOOD SHAH vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1210
- MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1732