AMJAD alias BHOLA vs THE STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Amjad alias Bhola in respect of F.I.R. No. 304 registered at Police Station City Khanpur for offences under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the alleged abduction of a minor girl and the role attributed to him. The court holds that the prosecution's narrative contains elements of doubt, notably regarding how the minor victim managed to escape swiftly and the fact that co-accused were granted relief following affidavits from the complainant side. The court concludes that the case calls for further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the petition is accepted, and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds.
- Whether the circumstances of a minor victim's escape from custody create sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Does the release of co-accused on bail provide grounds for extending the same relief to a petitioner with an identical role?
- Can an affidavit from the complainant side regarding the pardon of co-accused weaken the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD' KHALID ALYI, J.--Amjad alias Bhola petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.304, registered at Police Station, City Khanpur, on 8-6-2006, for offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 365, P.P.C. [1] doing labour and when he came back to his house he found his daughter Mst. Seema aged 1.1/12 years missing.
On search P.Ws. Apprised him that she was being taken away by Amjad alias Bhola-petitioner along with Mukhtar Ahmad, Iqbal, Wazir Ahmad and Zainab and two unknown persons on a dala.
Hence, the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegedly Mst. Seema, the alleged abductee was taken .Away by seven accused-persons on 8-6-2006 and strangely enough she managed to run away from their custody on 9-6-2006 and on the same day got her statement recorded. Further submits that Mukhtar and Abdur Razzaq co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge having identical role; that Mst. Zainab co-accused has been declared to be innocent; and that there is no allegation of rape against the petitioner. '
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application by contending that a heinous crime of abduction of a minor girl aged 10/11 years is committed by the petitioner and is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Prima facie the prosecution story as put forward appears to be having some elements of doubt.
A minor girl aged 10/11 years was abducted by seven persons and managed to take away her in a wagon but strangely she was not kept under guard and she managed to run away on the very next day. Two of the co-accused have reportedly been pardoned by the complainant side on the basis of which they have been released on bail. Although, the offence is not compoundable but still an affidavit to that effect was filed by the complainant side which has also caused a further dent in the doubtful story of the prosecution.
7. For the foregoing reasons case of the petitioner requires further enquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail Subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.