NOUSHER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Nausher, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 62, dated 1-6-2005, registered at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari, for alleged offences under Sections 18 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, specifically for attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the complainant's stance. During the proceedings, the complainant, Mst. Jannat Bibi, appeared in court and explicitly stated that the F.I.R. was lodged by her father without her authorization and that the allegations against the petitioner were false. Furthermore, the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) confirmed that the complainant had resiled from her statement and that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court held that no case was made out against the petitioner. The Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where a complainant denies the veracity of the F.I.R. and the police confirm the accused is no longer required for investigation, bail should be confirmed.
- Is a petitioner entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the complainant denies the veracity of the F.I.R. in court?
- Does the lack of requirement for further investigation by the police support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Petitioner Nausher, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,62, dated 1- 6-2005, under sections 18/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah District Vehari for the allegations of attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the complainant, hence, this case.
2. Complainant Mst. Jannat Bibi, present in Court states that the FA.R. Was lodged on her behalf by her father, whereas, allegation levelled in the F.I.R. Against the petitioner are false.
3. S.H.O. In attendance, states that since the complainant has resiled from her statement, hence, petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.
4. In view of the statement made by the complainant Mst Jannat Bibi that the F.I.R. Was not recorded by her and the same was registered on her behalf by her father, no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, interim pre-arrest -bail already granted to the petitioner on 16-12- 2005 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZUBAIR vs SHERAZ and 2 others 2019 MLD 831