MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.189 dated 7-10-2004 registered under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Riya Khas, Narowal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the five-month delay in lodging the F.I.R., the conduct of the prosecutrix, and the lack of immediate independent corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell under Section 10(2) of the Ordinance, noting that the prosecutrix was the sole witness, her conduct showed silence for five months, and her sole statement required independent corroboration at the tentative assessment stage. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing requisite security bonds. The key principle laid down is that the uncorroborated sole statement of a prosecutrix whose conduct exhibits prolonged silence, coupled with a delayed F.I.R., warrants the concession of post-arrest bail upon tentative assessment.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is a significant delay in lodging the F.I.R.?
- Is the uncorroborated sole statement of the prosecutrix sufficient to deny bail at the tentative assessment stage?
- Whether the conduct and prolonged silence of the prosecutrix brings the case within the ambit of Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979 for the purpose of bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Through this petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in the case F.I.R. No.189 dated 7-10-2004 registered under section 10 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 at Police Station Riya Khas, Narowal on the ground that there is delay of five months in lodging the F.I.R.; that the F.I.R. Is false, frivolous and concocted one; that the petitioner is previously non-convict and that the challan has been submitted in the trial Court and petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Mst. Sumera Bibi alleged victim was working as a maidservant. Illicit relations were developed between the petitioner and the victim. She became pregnant. Medicines were administered to her for abortion but the abortion did not take place which prompted her parents to get a case registered. On her examination, she was found pregnant of 20 weeks. She is the sole witness of the entire incident. Her conduct and silence for a period of 5 months apparently brings the case of the petitioner under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979.
The prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtue, admitting two fingers easily per report of medical officer.
Her sole statement without independent corroboration cannot be relied upon at this stage in tentative assessm ent.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. .