ROSHAN DIN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who is accused of abduction and committing Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court observed that the alleged abductee's initial statements were inconsistent and uncertain regarding the commission of Zina, noting that she was brought home by a third party and initially did not allege sexual assault. Finding the prosecution's case against the petitioner weak and noting that a co-accused with an identical role had already been released on bail, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment affirms the principle of consistency in criminal jurisprudence, holding that where a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to the same concession to ensure uniformity in judicial treatment.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does a supplementary statement by an alleged victim carry legal weight when it contradicts earlier statements regarding the commission of Zina?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMAD ASLAM, J.---The petitioners, through this petition, seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 304, dated 22-7-2003 registered under sections 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, VIIof 1979 with Police Station, Raiwind Saddar District Kasur.
2. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that he along withhis co-accused abducted Mst.
Robina Bibi, administered here intoxication and thereafter committed zina with her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that co-accused of the petitioner Akhtar with similar role has been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and, thus, on the principle of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
4(sic). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
6. The complainant is the father of the alleged abductee Mst. Robina Bibi. He lodged a report in Police Station wherein he stated that on 20-7-2003 at midnight his wife awoke up and told him that Mst. Robina Bibi, the alleged abductee is not present in the house. Search was conducted. On 21-7- 2003 at 1.00 p.m. Munshi Khan brought her to the house. On inquiry Mst. Robina Bibi disclosed that the petitioner and hisco-accused abducted her at gunpoint. She was administered some intoxication and became unconscious. She was in the house of Akhtar Hussain and is not aware whether she was subjected to any indecent act or otherwise. Statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded. She in that statement stated that she is not aware that she was subjected to Zina or otherwise, on account of being unconscious. In her supplementary statement she stated that the accused abducted her and they were present there, therefore, they had committed Zina.
7. Disappearance of the alleged abductee at midnight from the house in presence of her father, mother and family members negates her abduction. Munshi Khan brought her back to the house.
Allegation of Zina was neither made by her when her father asked where she had been in the previous night nor in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Supplementary statement though has no value in the eyes of law but even in that statement she stated that since she was with the accused, hence they have committed Zina. She is uncertain about the commission of zina with her.
8. Akhtar Hussain, co-accused of the petitioner, with similar role has been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Case of the petitioner is at par. He is entitled to concession on the principle of consistency. Reliance can be placed upon the case of Muhammad Fazal alias Bodi v. The State (1979 SCM R 9).
9. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.