MUHAMMAD SOHANRAH alias MALIK SOHANRAH vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sohanrah, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly enticing away the wife of the complainant's brother. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delay in trial, the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for approximately 16 months without the submission of a complete challan, indicating no immediate prospect of trial. Furthermore, the Court observed an unexplained 352-day delay in lodging the FIR and found that the petitioner's case was on par with a co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without the commencement of trial, combined with unexplained delay in FIR registration and the rule of consistency with co-accused, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been enlarged on bail?
- Does the failure to submit a complete challan and the resulting delay in the commencement of trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No, 147/2005 dated 7.7.2005 u/S. 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 Police Station Daira Din Panah, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffargarh.
2. 2.It is stated in the F.I.R. by the complainant that Mst. Naseem Akhtar, wife of his brother Bashir Hussain, was enticed away by the petitioner alongwith others.
3. 3.Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. 4.Petitioner is behind the bars for the last almost 16 months and complete challan has not so far been submitted. Hence there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in the near future, that the instant F.I.R. was lodged with an inordinate delay of 352 days, for which no plausible explanation was put forth; that the co-accused Wahid Bakhsh having similar role has already been enlarged on bail on 27.10.2005; that the only evidence against the petitioner is that the alleged abductee was last seen in the company of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. including the petitioner and she has not so far been recovered. As per police record, she has contracted marriage with co- accused Muhammad Bakhsh and this was also verified by the Secretary Union Council; that the case of co-accused Wahid Bakhsh (already enlarged on bail on 27.10.2005) is at par with the case of the petitioner.
5. 5.For, what has been stated above, this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/-, with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.