SHAHID MANZOOR alias MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 10, 11, and 79 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Sammundri, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was found innocent during investigation, no recovery was effected from him, and the alleged abductees in their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 made no allegations of abduction or Zina against him. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is declared innocent during police investigation and the statements of the victims do not implicate him, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent during the police investigation?
- Whether the absence of incriminating statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justifies granting bail to an accused charged with abduction?
- Does the lack of any recovery from the accused during investigation form a valid ground for post-arrest bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 79, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail' in a case F.I.R. No.325 of 2003 dated 15-7-2003 registered under sections 10/11/79. Hudood Ordinance at Police Station Sammndri, District Faisalabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner according to the contents of the F.I.R. Is that he along with his co-accused abducted Mst. Naveed Anjum and Mst. Naureen Anjum for the purpose of committing Zina with them.
3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sammundri vide his order dated 19-12-2003.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation of the case, the petitioner along with co-accused were found innocent and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his co-accused. The learned counsel for the State when confronted with this position could not respond.
6. The petitioner has been declared innocent and the abductees were recovered from some other persons. Statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of the said abductees have been recorded, wherein they have not levelled any allegation of abduction or Zina against the petitioner and his co- accused.
7. For the foregoing reasons and without prejudicing the merits of the case, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. Copy dasti.