Zulfaqar vs The State
The petitioner, an accused in FIR No. 10 dated 19.1.2006, sought post-arrest bail regarding charges under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds that he was declared innocent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P.), that the specific allegation against him involved only a minor injury, that his vicarious liability for the murder of the deceased remained to be determined, and that the recovery evidence was fabricated. The complainant and the State opposed the bail application. The Court observed that the arguments raised by the petitioner necessitated a deeper examination of the evidence, which was not appropriate at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that despite the D.S.P.'s finding of innocence, the Trial Court had summoned the petitioner and the trial had already commenced. Consequently, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant bail at this stage of the proceedings and dismissed the petition.
- Can a bail application be granted when the trial has already commenced and the petitioner has been summoned by the Trial Court?
- Does a finding of innocence by a police officer like a D.S.P. automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a deeper examination of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J. -- Thepetitioner who is one of the accused in case FIR No. 10, dated 19.1.2006 under section 11 of Offence of Zina L (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, P.S. Chowk Azam, Layyah, seeks post arrest bail in the saw case, on the ground that he was arrested on 13.2.2006, was declared innocent by the D.S.P, the only allegation against him is that he gave sota blow to the injured and that his vicarious liability qua co-accused with regard to murder of Mushtaq deceased is yet to be determined after recording of evidence and that alleged recovery planted against the petitioner is fictitious.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the I complainant assisted by learned State counsel has opposed I this petition.
I 3. Without going into details, suffice it to say that I arguments advanced by learned counsel, for the petitioner I require deeper examination of the evidence which is not possible at this stage.
Although the petitioner was declared innocent by the D.S.P, yet he has been summoned by the learned Trial Court to trial. The trial has also commenced. I am therefore, not inclined to allow bail to the petitioner at this stage. This petition as such is dismissed.