UMAR HAYAT and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, who were implicated in an F.I.R. regarding the alleged abduction of a woman. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that the investigation had recommended the cancellation of the case and the alleged victim had provided a statement denying abduction and asserting a valid marriage. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, emphasizing that in the criminal administration of justice, any doubt created at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused rather than the prosecution. The Court found that the Investigating Officer's recommendation for cancellation of the case created a significant doubt regarding the veracity of the F.I.R. allegations. Furthermore, the alleged victim's statement confirming her marriage and denying abduction supported the grant of bail. The Court clarified that the lack of formal approval of the cancellation report by a Magistrate did not preclude the benefit of doubt from being extended to the accused at the bail stage.
- Does a police recommendation for the cancellation of a case create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is the formal approval of a cancellation report by a Magistrate a prerequisite for granting bail based on the findings of that report?
- Should the benefit of doubt at the bail stage be extended to the accused when the alleged victim denies abduction in a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed by petitioners as they stand implicated in F.I.R. No,62 of 2005, dated 6-2-2005 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station, Bhikhi District Sheikhupura. The present application has been filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. For post-arrest bail.
2. Briefly in F.I.R. No,62 of 2005 of Police Station, Bhikhi, the petitioners were alleged to have abducted Saima Bibi, daughter of the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Saima Bibi was not abducted as alleged in the F.I.R. But she herself married with Kashif validly in accordance with Sharia and law. He further submits that the fact of Nikah between Saima Bibi and Kashif has been found in accordance with law during the investigation and for the same reason the case has been recommended for cancellation. He further submits that during investigation statement of Saima Bibi was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein she also stated that she is a lawfully wedded wife of Kashif.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that Nikah was performed under pressure after abduction as stated in the F.I.R. He further submits that Investigating Officer did not verify Nikah as he was required under the law. He further submits that statement of Nikah Khawan was not recorded which was necessary to ascertain the genuineness of Nikah. He also submits that though the case has been recommended for cancellation but it has not been approved and cancelled by the learned Magistrate and therefore, case should not be treated as cancelled at the moment. The learned counsel appearing for the State also endorses the above contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also consulted the record with their assistance. In criminal administration of justice if any doubt is created at trial stage or bail stage benefit of doubt is given to the accused person and not to be prosecution. Undisputedly the case F.I.R. No,62 of 2005 has been recommended for cancellation, that of course created a very serious doubt in veracity of contents of F.I.R. The objection of the learned counsel for the complainant that the same has not been approved or cancelled yet by the learned Magistrate is not relevant, at least at bail stage. The learned counsel for the complainant or complainant can agitate or contest on his point before the concerned Magistrate or can also move to the concerned police authority for re-investigation. For the purpose of bail, the doubt created by the report of the Investigating Officer whereby he recommended for cancellation of the case, benefit goes to the petitioners.
Similarly, the statement of Saima Bibi is also on record whereby she was categorically stated that she married with her consent to Kashif and no one abducted her.
6. Therefore, for reasons recorded above, this bail application is allowed subject to furnishing bail bonds by the petitioners in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.