REHMAT ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the alleged occurrence. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged approximately one month after the alleged incident without sufficient explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged abductee was a married woman and that the circumstances suggested a potential case of elopement rather than abduction. While declining to undertake a deeper appreciation of the evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail application, granting the petitioner the concession of bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, establishing the principle that unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R. can constitute grounds for further inquiry at the bail stage.
- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
- Under what circumstances does a case of alleged abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.278 of 2004 registered on 7-8-2004 in Police Station, City Narowal under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Mst. Khatoon Bibi complainant regarding abduction of her daughter-in- law Mst. Sarwari Bibi on 8-7-2004 by the accused. She also alleged that the accused had let off her daughter-in-law on 29-7-2004 and who had then told her that the accused had been committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. At the time of argument, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the alleged abductee was recovered on 29-7-2004, he was medically examined on 7-8- 2004; that she is a married lady; that there also appears to be inordinate delay in lodging the F.LR.
That the occurrence had taken place on 8-7-2004 while the matter was reported to the police a month later on 7-8-2004, that sufficient A explanation about the delay has not been offered; that on the face of it, it seems to be a case of elopement, rather than of abduction. But without undertaking deeper appreciation of evidence and which is not permissible at the bail stage, it is clearly a case of further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner and he is thus entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, this bail application is accepted and the petitioner namely Rehmat Ali is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Bail. Granted.