MUHAMMAD HANIF vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, who was accused in FIR No. 315/04 registered under Section 10(2) and Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction of Mst. Nooran Bibi. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the completion of the investigation and the statement of the alleged abductee. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, primarily because the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. Crucially, the alleged abductee had recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, denying abduction and alleging that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent by her father. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, emphasizing that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to a co-accused when another co-accused has already been released?
- Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an alleged abductee denying the abduction constitute grounds for bail?
- Is the completion of an investigation and the submission of a challan a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner has sought his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 315/04 dated 9.8.2004 registered u/S. 10(2)/16 offence of Zina (Ent of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Luddan, District, Vehari.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mst. Nooran Bibi daughter of the complainant alongwith the other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the FIR and story of the same is concocted one; that the petitioner is behind the bars for; that co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf has already been granted bail and the petitioner under the rule of consistency also deserves for the concession of bail. Further submits that investigation is complete and petitioner is not required by the local police for further investigation.
That Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee during her statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. dated 30.9.2005 had stated that she was not abducted by any one.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the FIR and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is, behind the bars. Investigation in the case' is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Muhammad Altaf co-accused has already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail.
Further more Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee got her statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Ist Class, Khanewal on 30.9.2005, wherein she had categorically deposed that she was not abducted by any one and FIR No. 8/04 an FIR No. 315/04 were got lodged by her father complainant with malafide intention and despite his undertaking her father-complainant did not allow her to accompany her husband-petitioner.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.