MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 38 registered under sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Saddar Haroonabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the disputed marriage and circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, noting a one-month delay in reporting the matter, the presence of the alleged abducttee's signature and thumb mark on the Nikahnama, her statement in favour of the petitioner before a Judicial Magistrate, her prolonged company with the petitioner without raising protest, and the legal irrelevance of whether the Nikah Khawan was officially registered under Sharia. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing suitable bail bonds.
- Whether the delay of one month in reporting the F.I.R. to the police makes the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the lack of registration of a Nikah Khawan invalidate a marriage under Sharia for the purpose of bail?
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged victim has made statements in favour of the petitioner and remained in his company without protest?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Munir Ahmad son of Akhtar Ali, petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,38, registered at Police Station, Saddar Haroonabad, on 3-2-2006, for Offences under sections 11/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Briefly, according to prosecution case, on 3-1-2006 Mst. Rizwana Kausar, daughter of the complainant was allegedly abducted by Munir Ahmad and other co-accused. Thereafter Munir Ahmad committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Rizwana Kausar (alleged abducttee) is wife of the petitioner and has referred to Nikahnama annexure-D to this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition and has argued that Mst. Rizwana Kausar was forced to thumb-mark Nikahnama; and that after her recovery Mst. Rizwana Kausar supported the prosecution case in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that Mst. Rizwana Kausar was forced to file complaint against her relatives and the same has been withdrawn by her after her recovery; that she also supported the prosecution case before the Magistrate while withdrawing the private complainant filed by her; and that Nikah Khawan, who allegedly performed Nikah between the petitioner and Mst. Rizwana Kausar, was not a registered Nikah Khawan and has been included in the list of the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the State has adopted the line of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that the matter was reported to the police after delay of full one month; Nikahnama annexure-D to this petition contains the signature as well as thumb mark of Mst. Rizwana Kausar; she also made statement in favour of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Bahawalnagar; Mst. Rizwana Kausar, remained in the company of petitioner till 14-2-2006 and had been moving from one place to another without raising any protest. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned that Nikah Khawan was not registered Nikha Khawan, it has no force as it is not required by Sharia that Nikah should be performed by a registered Nikah Khawan. In these circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioner need further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.