LIAQUAT ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Liaquat Ali in relation to F.I.R. No. 116 of 2003 registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar District Vehari, concerning allegations that the petitioner enticed away the complainant's daughter for committing Zina. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delayed F.I.R., the non-recovery of the abductee from the petitioner, the statutory delay in submitting the challan, and the principle of consistency given that co-accused facing similar allegations had already been enlarged on bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations and statements by the abductee have already been granted bail, particularly where the abductee has not been recovered from the petitioner and the trial has been delayed.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when co-accused with similar allegations have already been enlarged on bail?
- Does the non-recovery of the alleged abductee from the petitioner justify the grant of bail?
- Is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and submission of the challan a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.116 of 2003 dated 21-4-2003 under sections 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, read with section 380, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar District Vehari.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. By the complainant that his daughter namely Mst. Sajida was enticed away by the petitioner and others for the purpose of committing Zina with her.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Mst. Sajida, the alleged abductee has not been recovered from the petitioner, who is behind the bars since 25-7-2003 and the complete Challan has not so far been submitted to the learned trial Court; that there is a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the alleged abductee in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Leveled allegation of Zina against the petitioner and all the other accused named in the F.I.R. But strange enough they were enlarged on bail and presently, there is no evidence against the petitioner except the solitary statement of the alleged abductee which was not fully believed by the learned Court below while granting bail to the other accused named in the F.I.R. With the similar allegation.
5. All the above factors taken together persuade me to allow this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.