MUHAMMAD RAMZAN etc. vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following allegations of abduction and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidentiary developments during the investigation. The Court observed that the alleged abductee, Mst. Samina, had previously filed an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting that she had contracted a marriage with one Muhammad Waheed of her own free will. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the nikahnama was verified, confirming the abductee was sui juris and had married voluntarily. Consequently, the local police recommended the cancellation of the case. Finding that the case against the petitioners fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle established is that where investigation reveals the alleged abductee is sui juris and has contracted a valid marriage, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the verification of a nikahnama and the statement of an alleged abductee that she is sui juris and married voluntarily constitute grounds for further inquiry in an abduction case?
- Can bail be granted when the police have recommended the cancellation of the FIR during the investigation stage?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners have moved post arrest bail in case FIR No, 20/2005 dated 15.1.2005 registered u/S. 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 on the complaint of Muhammad Nizam at. Police Station Jehanina District, Khanewal.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution story narrated in the FIR is that on 6.1.2005 when the complainant was not at home the accused persons forcibly abducted his daughter and also injured his wife.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and have no concern with the Commission of offence. That Mst. Samina alleged abductee out of own sweet will has contracted marriage on 5.1.2005 with Waheed, this fact was stated by her in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khanewal in an application filed -under Section 491 Cr.P.C.
Further submits that as no offence has been made out and the police has recommended the case for cancellation so the petitioners are entitled for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the course of investigation nikahnama has been verified and it has been found that the alleged abductee being sui juris has contracted marriage with Muhammad Waheed and the local police has recommended the case for its cancellation. Petitioner is behind the bars since 9.3.2005. In these circumstances case against the petitioners of further inquiry hence they are allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However. this order shall have no effect if proceedings during trial.