FAYYAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the alleged victim's denial of abduction and confirmation of marriage, and whether the arrest was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court held that since the alleged abductee appeared in court, unequivocally confirmed her marriage to the petitioner, and denied the abduction, the prosecution's case was weakened. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners were arrested without the requisite permission from the court as mandated by law. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where an alleged victim of abduction denies the offence and confirms a valid marriage to the accused, and where procedural safeguards regarding arrest have been bypassed, the accused is entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the denial of abduction by an alleged victim and confirmation of marriage entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Is an arrest valid if made without the permission required under Section 156-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 156-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--The petitioners being accused in caSfe F.I.R. No. 220 dated 5-6- 2005 under section 11/10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 Police Station Khairpur Tamewali, seek post-arrest bail in the said case, on the ground that Fayyaz petitioner No.l has contracted marriage with Mst. Shehnaz Mai with her free consent and will and that Haji Muhammad Zaman petitioner No.2 has been falsely involved. It is further argued that in view of the mandatory provisions of section 156-B, Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested without permission from the court.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer on the ground that Fayyaz petitioner No.l having Jready contracted two marriages has no / allegedly contracted third marriage with T/1st. Shehnaz.
3. Mst. Shehnaz the alleged abductee/ accused is present in Court and has in unequivocal terms confirmed her marriage with Fayyaz petitioner and denied her alleged abduction by any person including the petitioners. Photocopy of Nikahnama is also available on the record, whereby marriage of Fayyazv petitioner No. 1 and Mst. Shehnaz Mai took place on 18-10-2004.
4. In view of the above circumstances, when Mst. Shehnaz Mai admits her Nikah with Fayyaz petitioner No.l and denies the allegations of the complainant abput her abduction and that petitioners have been arrested without following the procedure as laid down in section 156-B, Cr.P.C., this petition is allowed and the petitioners are. Admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R.(J) of this Bench.