MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam Shah, in case F.I.R. No. 37 of 2001 registered under sections 10(3), 11, 13, and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station City Kahror Pakka, District Lodhran. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay, the delayed lodging of the F.I.R., lack of direct allegation of Zina against him, and the rule of consistency in view of the bail granted to a co-accused. The court held that the petition should be accepted, granting bail to the petitioner. The key legal principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted based on the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar or more serious allegations has been admitted to bail, coupled with prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial and delayed reporting of the crime.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail based on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
- What is the legal effect of a delayed F.I.R. and the absence of direct allegations of Zina against a petitioner seeking bail?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,37 of 2001 dated 9-2-2001 for offences under sections 10(3)/11/13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station City Kahror Pakka, District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he had kept the complainant with him on pretext of contracting marriage while the co-accused allegedly committed Zina with her after having procured her services.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last more than three years and eleven months and that the main accused namely Zulfiqar had been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,566/B of 2005 dated 16-3-2006 and that keeping in view the law of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 30-5-2002 and the challan was submitted in the trial Court on 25-9-2004 and that seven witnesses had been examined at the trial so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been noticed that the F.I.R. Had been lodged after a lapse of six months. The complainant had voluntarily gone with the petitioner. No allegation of having committed Zina with the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. The petitioner is in jail since 30-5-2002 and the trial has not yet concluded. The main accused of the petitioner namely Zulfiqar has already been granted bail by this Court on 16-3-2006 and keeping in view the law of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the