MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of committing an offence under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the conflicting statements of the alleged victim. The court observed significant contradictions in the First Information Report, noting that the alleged victim had previously filed a suit for dissolution of marriage and had sought protection, casting doubt on the complainant's narrative of abduction. Furthermore, the timeline regarding the victim's medical examination and her statements before the Family Court appeared irreconcilable with the prosecution's allegations. The court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' as contemplated under the law governing bail. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, granting the petitioner post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, thereby establishing that where the prosecution's case rests on inherently contradictory evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.
- Does the existence of significant contradictions in the prosecution's case warrant the grant of bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the complainant's narrative is inconsistent with the victim's prior legal actions and statements?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- The petitioner is an accused of commission of offence under section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No,312, dated 1-12-2003, Police Station Rohilanwali, District 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 that upon plain reading of the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. Make a rather interesting reading. The complainant, Zia-urRehman Sajid, stated before Allah Diwaya, S.-I. 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 F.I.R. Came there. The articles and cash mentioned therein was also found missing. Search was conducted. The persons mentioned in the F.I.R. Informed him that they have seen Mst. Shehnaz Mai leaving on a Pick up along with 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 F.I.R. They are unable to do so. It is a matter of record that the lady had filed a suit against her husband on 5-12-2003 for dissolution of marriage at Khanewal. She also sought protection from a learned Magistrate who sent her to Darul Amaan. 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 positive report was given. I 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.
Criminal Miscellaneous accordingly is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety,, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.