KHALID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, following an FIR registered at Police Station Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the non-compoundable nature of the alleged offence, given that the victim and the primary eyewitness had sworn affidavits exonerating the accused. The Court observed that the charge was limited to an attempt to commit Zina and noted that the star witnesses, who were present in court, explicitly stated they did not oppose the bail application. The Court held that while the offence is not compoundable, the exoneration by the victim and the eyewitness created a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the primary witnesses exonerate the accused, even in non-compoundable offences, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the exoneration of an accused by the victim and eyewitnesses in a non-compoundable offence constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted in a case registered under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, if the victim does not oppose the application?
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.254, dated 13-10-2006 registered under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Ghaziabad District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that victim and her husband who is one of eye-witnesses of the occurrence had sworn the affidavits exonerating petitioner from the offence alleged against him. The victim and Talib Hussain her husband duly identified by the learned counsel 'for the complainant are present in Court.
They do not oppose this application.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail application on the ground that the offence is not compoundable.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the case has been registered under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 as such it is a case of only attempt to commit zina. Moreover the star witness on the basis of whose evidence the fate of the case depends has exonerated the petitioner. The eye-witness has also exonerated him. Though the offence allegedly committed by , the petitioner is not compoundable but in view of the duly sworn affidavits (placed on record today) which are being owned by the victim and above mentioned the eyewitness, before this Court, the case of further inquiry has been made out. Consequently this petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50*000 (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.