MUHAMMAD WAIL FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 247 of 2006 registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Korangi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, particularly given the delayed medical examination and lack of corroborative evidence regarding the Zina charge. The court held that except for the statement of the abductee, there was no immediate evidence on record to substantiate the allegation of Zina, making the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that where medical evidence is inconclusive due to delay and no direct corroboration exists for a serious charge, the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Whether the absence of conclusive medical evidence due to delayed examination makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary evidence rests solely on the uncorroborated statement of the abductee regarding the charge of Zina?
- Can bail be granted to an accused facing charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when circumstantial evidence requires further verification at trial?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This criminal bail application under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Has been filed in respect ofCrime No, 247 of 2006, under section 16, Zine EHO, 1979, read with section 380, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Korangi. The averments made in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant's wife was enticed away by the applicant and she absconded with him and after stealing 11 Tolas golden ornaments and Rs,2,50,000 in cash. The abductee was recovered from Ansar Burni Welfare Trust on 23rd May, 2006 and in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. She accused the applicant along with three other persons of :educing her by force and keeping her in the house of one Saima and thereafter, the accused brought her to City Court, got prepared her photographs and got her statement recorded before Justice of Peace and also got filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband on her behalf and then she was let at Ansar Burni Welfare Trust from where she was handed over to her parents. She also accused the applicant by stating that he had committed Zina with her. The learned counsel argued that the abductee was not recovered from the applicant nor there was any medical evidence to substantiate the statement of the abductee that she had been subjected to Zina by the applicant.
2. He pointed out that the case is progressing at snail's pace and out of 27 witnesses only three have deposed so far and adjournment applications are being filed by the complainant on one pretext or the other to delay the proceedings in trial.
3. ' The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application but had to concede that since the medical examination of the abductee was conducted almost 20 days after her recovery when she was going through her menstrual period, it was not possible for the doctors to conclusively hold that she had been subjected to Zina by the applicant. She stated that despite the fact that the abductec who was also implicated as a co-accused in the F.I.R. Has been released on bail but it does not necessarily mean that the main accused should be extended that benefit of bail granted to the abductee and be granted bail on this point only.
4. ' I have examined the records of the case in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel. I am of the opinion that presently except the statement of the abductee there is nothing on record to implicate the applicant in Zina case although there might be circumstantial evidence connecting him with the case of abduction. The aspect of Zina needs further enquiry and therefore, in my view, the applicant is entitled to bail. I therefore, admit the applicant to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 (Rupees Two lacks Fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
5. ' The applicant is erected to attend all the hearing of the trial Court and also comply with the directions of the trial Court failing which the benefit of bail may be withdrawn.
6. ' The trial Court is also directed to discourage the complainant from taking adjournment and try to dispose of the case by conducting proceedings on priority basis preferably within a period of six months.