Mst. HANIFA BIBI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by Mst. Hanifa Bibi and Mst. Naseem alias Bhago, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained delay of several days in lodging the F.I.R. and noted that the alleged abductee had been returned by the petitioners prior to the registration of the case, suggesting a bona fide gesture. Finding that the petitioners' involvement required further inquiry and that their continued incarceration was not justified, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that unexplained delay in reporting an offense, combined with mitigating circumstances like the voluntary return of an alleged victim, warrants the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the voluntary return of an alleged abductee by the accused a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case fall under the category of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,1931-B of 2005 (Mst. Hanifa Bibi v. The State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,1932-B of 2005 (Mst' Naseem alias Bhago v. The State) as both the bail petitions pertain to the same F.I.R.
2. The petitioners Mst. Hanifa Bibi and Mst. Nas,eem alias Bhago, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,175, dated 16-3-2005, offence under, sections 11 and 10 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance No,VII of 1979, registered at Police Station, City Mian Chanun, District Khanewal.
3. Allegation against the petitioners, as per prosecution version, is that the petitioners had abducted Mst. Munazaa Kiran daughter of the complainant Hidayat son of Hakim Masih. Mst Manuzza Kiran, the abductee was returned with the intervention of Panchayat. The abductee told that the petitioners forcibly solemnized her Nikah with Ghulam Nabi but she flatly refused, whereupon, Ghulam Nabi committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her, hence, the F . I . R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant. The petitioners are women, their case is hit by proviso (2) of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. Further contends there is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. Which clearly manifests that the complainant has sufficient time to cook up a false story to involve the petitioners in the abovementioned case just to humiliate their honour within the society. The petitioners are behind the bars and are no more required for the purpose of further investigation.
Also contends that co-accused of the petitioners has been granted bail, therefore, petitioners are also entitled for the same premium.
5. Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition on the ground that the petitioners were the instrumented in abducting Mst. Munazza Kiran, daughter of the complainant, hence, they are not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, Mst. Munazza Kiran-alleged abductee was returned by the petitioners on 11/12-3-2005 at about 12-00 p.m. (night) and the F.I.R. Was recorded on 16-3-2005 after the delay of 4/5 days. This delay has not been explained in the F.I.R. Apparently, it seems that the petitioners have been falsely involved in the case just to pressurize them. Had the petitioners been involved in the case, they would not have returned the daughter of the complainant as stated in the F.I.R. The gesture on the part of the petitioners is bona fide. It is yet to be determined whether the petitioners were involved for the abduction of Mst. Munazza Kiran-daughter of the complainant or not. The case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt. The case of the petitioners come under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And are entitled to bail. The petitioners cannot be kept in Jail for an indefinite period as there is no likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge.
Cited by 3 cases
- QADEER Versus State 2017 YLRN 283
- Syed NAVEED ALI vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Karachi) 234
- Syed NAVEED ALI vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 938