MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, vide FIR No. 312 dated 1.12.2003. The core legal question revolved around whether the inconsistencies in the FIR, the victim's changing statements, her contemporaneous suit for dissolution of marriage, and the delay in her medical examination made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the guilt of the accused given the irreconcilable averments and surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that unexplained material contradictions in the prosecution case and delayed medical examination can bring the matter within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether contradictory statements in the FIR and delayed medical examination justify granting post-arrest bail under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the alleged victim against her husband weaken the prosecution case for abduction and zina at the bail stage?
- When does a criminal case qualify for further inquiry entitling the accused to bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
The petitioner is an accused of commission of offence under Section 16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, vide FIR No, 312 dated 1.12.2003, Police Station Rohilanwali, Distt. Muzaffar Garh, who was arrested on 13.5.2005. He filed a bail application which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Garh on 28.2.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends upon plain reading of the FIR the case is false. He also refers to the constantly changing statements of the alleged victim Mst. Shehnaz Mai. Learned counsel for the complainant, assisting the learned counsel for state, opposes the bail application on the ground that ultimately the lady Stated that Zina was committed with her by the petitioner.
3. I have gone through the available records. Now contents of the said FIR make a rather interesting reading. The complainant, Zia-urRehman Sajid, stated before Allah Diwaya, SI who was patrolling in area that he is married to Shehnaz Mai and the couple has a daughter. She is two months pregnant. Muhammad Aslam was on visiting terms and developed illicit relations with his wife.
When he came to know he stopped Muhammad Aslam from coming to his house. He got up in the morning. He did not find his wife present. He raised hue and cry. Whereupon persons mentioned in the FIR came there. The articles and cash mentioned therein was also found missing. Search was conducted. The persons mentioned in the FIR informed him that they have seen Mst. Shehnaz Mai leaving on a pick up alongwith Muhammad Aslam, Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Irshad.
According to him his wife had been abducted by Muhammad Aslam for commission of Zina.
4. I called upon the learned counsel for the complainant and the State as to how do they reconcile several averments made in the FIR. They are unable to do so. It is a matter of record that the lady filed a suit against her husband on 5.12.2003 for dissolution of marriage at Khanewal. She also sought protection form a learned Magistrate who sent her to Darul Ainaan. She was released from Darul Amaan on 10.12.2004. It was several days thereafter that she was medically examined and it is rather strange that a positive report was given. It may further note here that on 21.1.2004, she stated before the learned Judge Family Court that she has joined her husband and does not want to pursue the suit. She was medically examined on 13.1.2005.
5. Having thus examined the records, I do find that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. Crl.
Misc. accordingly is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.