MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had eloped with the complainant's wife for the purpose of committing zina. The petitioner contended that the case was a result of a matrimonial dispute, noting a pending suit for dissolution of marriage and a delay of seven and a half months in lodging the First Information Report (FIR). The Lahore High Court observed that there was a significant, unexplained delay in registering the FIR and that a matrimonial dispute was pending between the spouses, suggesting a mala fide intention to implicate the petitioner's family. Finding no prima facie evidence of abduction or zina, the Court held that the statutory provisions were not attracted and that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner.
- Whether an unexplained delay of several months in lodging an FIR, coupled with a pending matrimonial dispute, can make a case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if there is no prima facie evidence of abduction or zina?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.---Muhammad Saddique, petitioner, seeks bail after arrest in case registered against him and other co-accused vide F.I.R. No,641 dated 28-12-2002, for offences under sections 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 380 P.P.C. At P.S. .Kotwali, Jhang, registered on the complaint of Muhammad Ramzan son of Khair Muhammad:
2. Muhammad Ramzan married Mst: Asia Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi. Out of the wedlock daughters were born. It is alleged that' she has eloped with the accused petitioner for committing zina.
Petitioner applied for bail after arrest before the learned Additional Session Judge which has been declined. Hence this petition.
3. Learned' counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a matrimobial dispute between husband and wife and a suit for dissolution of marriage has been filed against Muhammad Ramzan by Mst. Asia Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi and due to this grudge, the whole family has been roped in this case; that there is delay of about 7-1/2 months in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is no evidence of abduction or zina and in this view of the matter, provisions of section 10/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted and there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence but there are reasonable grounds of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that two persons namely Umar Hayat son of Inayat and Saeed son of Sultan had seen Mst. Asia. Bibi alias Shehnaz Bibi being eloped with the accused, therefore he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. There is delay of about 7-1/2IA months in lodging the F.I.R. Admittedly, there was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for dissolution of marriage was pending, the whole family has been roped in the case with mala fide intention. There is no evidence of abduction in this case.
Therefore, provisions of section 10L16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are no attracted. Therefore, it is concluded that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been charged for but there are grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one .Surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.