RASHID IQBAL vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner, Rashid Iqbal, sought confirmation of bail following allegations of abduction and zina-bil-jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the subsequent statement of the alleged victim, Mst. Saima Bibi, who appeared in court, denied the allegations of abduction and rape, and affirmed her marriage to the petitioner. The complainant and the State opposed the bail, arguing the victim was under pressure from the petitioner. The Court, noting that the victim was sui juris and had categorically denied the allegations, held that the legal position had shifted. While noting that Section 156-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally restricts arrests in Hudood cases without magisterial permission, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail to resolve the ongoing contest, emphasizing the weight of the victim's statement in determining the merits of the bail application.
- Does the statement of an alleged victim denying abduction and rape, and affirming marriage to the accused, constitute sufficient grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Does Section 156-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit the arrest of an accused in a Hudood case without the permission of the concerned Magistrate?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 156-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Rashid Iqbal petitioner seeks confirmation of his pre-arrest bail granted by this Court on 23.7.2006 in case FIR No. 137 dated 29.4.2006 under Section 10(3) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 Police Station Kasowal, District Sahiwal. Mst. Saima Bibi the alleged abductee and victim appeared before this Court and made a categorical statement that she had contracted marriage with Rashid Iqbal petitioner and now is living with him as his legally wedded wife and that she was neither abducted by the petitioner nor was subjected to zina bil jabr within the meanings of Section 10(3) of the said Ordinance. She further stated that case was got registered by her under pressure of her father.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as state have opposed this application by contending that in fact Mst Saima is now under pressure of the petitioner, therefore, she is retracting from her earlier stance, otherwise, she had got the case registered with her free consent attributing commission of zina-bil-jabr by the petitioner therefore, her statement at this stage cannot be considered as a valid piece of evidence.
3. Arguments considered. Record perused.
4. In view of statement of Mst. Saima Bibi the alleged victim/abductee who is sui-juris categorically denying the allegation of her abduction or commission of zina bil jabr by the petitioner and admitting her marriage with Rashid Iqbal petitioner, the legal position though stands changed in view of provisions of Section 156-B Cr.P.C. prohibiting arrest of any accused in an offence under Hudood Ordinance without the permission of the concerned Magistrate, (not in case of zina-bil- jabr) even no formal order of bail is required by this Court, yet in view of the contest by the father of Mst. Saima as well as learned counsel for the state, I deem it appropriate to allow this application which is accordingly accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner by this Court on 24.7.2006 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum o Rs.
5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learner trial Court, within ten days.