SOHAIL AHMAD SHAH vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1 of 2002 registered under Sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the discrepancy between the initial report and the statement of the abductee recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the absence of any allegation of Zina against the petitioner, and his relationship as the real brother of the principal accused. The court held that prima facie the circumstances indicated a case of further inquiry and admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where contradictions exist between the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the role of an accused, and no direct allegation of the principal offence is attributed, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether contradictions between the FIR and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. make out a case for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no allegation of Zina is leveled against him?
- Does delayed registration of an FIR in abduction cases justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Sections 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No, 1 of 2002 dated 1.1.2002 under Sections 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the' case as given in the FIR are that on 26.12.2001, complainant's sister Mst. Farzana did not return from her duty, whereupon the complainant inquired and PWs` informed that she was seen in the company of petitioner and his co-accused at BCG Chowk, where they were boarding a Wagon heading towards General Bus Stand. The complainant in the company of PWs went to the house of Faheem Shah co-accused who promised to return the abductee, but on finally refusing the instant case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay of 6 days in registration of the case; that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner; and that the petitioner has only been involved in the case because he is real brother of Faheem Shah, the alleged principal accused.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed this application.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. According to the FIR, the petitioner was one of the initial abductors alongwith Faheem Shah, Muhammad Anwar & Mst. Faiz Akhtar, while according to the statement of Mst. Farzana recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., petitioner was not one of the initial abductors. According to which initially she was abducted by Faheem Shah, Muhammad Anwar and Mst. Faiz Akhtar. The petitioner was later on involved in the process of occurrence. The abductee has not levelled any allegation of Zina against the petitioner, even otherwise, the petitioner is real brother of Faheem Shah, who is the principal accused in the case. The abductee was not recovered from the petitioner. Prima facie, circumstances of the case indicate that case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.