MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 205 registered under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 324, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. The core question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering that he was not nominated in the F.I.R., the victim made no allegations against him in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, co-accused facing similar or more serious allegations had already been granted bail, and he had been incarcerated for a significant period. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The court laid down that where a non-nominated accused has not been implicated by the victim in her statement and co-accused attributed more serious roles have already been enlarged on bail, the case against the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry under the criminal procedure law.
- Whether a non-nominated accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim does not implicate him in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused charged with more serious offences create a ground for bail on the rule of consistency for another accused?
- Whether a case requiring further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under criminal law warrants the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 205, registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari on 1.6.1999 for an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 324/379/148/149, P.P.C.
2.' As per F.I.R., the accused named therein had abducted Mst. Sakina Bibi daughter of the complainant by using firearms for the purpose of committing zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; even Mst. Sakina Bibi after having been recovered recorded her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., but she has not leveled any allegation of Zina or abduction against the petitioner; that the main accused who have allegedly caused firearm injuries to PW Sher Ali as well as committed zina with Mst. Sikna Bibi had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala vide order dated 15.8.2003, that he is in jail since 29.1.2005.
4. Learned counsel for the State though remained unable to controvert the above submissions yet it is stated by him that it shall be in the interest of justice and fair-play if a direction be issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. For the uncontroverted submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.