RASHID IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by Rashid Iqbal, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 137 of 2006 under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of bail given the alleged victim's subsequent statement retracting the allegations of abduction and zina-bil-jabr. The alleged victim, Mst. Saima Bibi, appeared before the Court and testified that she was sui juris, had contracted a valid marriage with the petitioner, and that the initial F.I.R. was registered under parental pressure. The Court held that in light of the victim's categorical denial of the offense and her admission of marriage, the petitioner's request for confirmation of pre-arrest bail should be granted. The Court affirmed the bail, noting that while the legal landscape regarding arrests in Hudood cases is governed by Section 156-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the contested nature of the case necessitated a formal confirmation of the ad-interim bail previously granted.
- Does the statement of an alleged victim denying abduction and zina-bil-jabr constitute sufficient grounds for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a formal order of bail required for an accused under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when the victim denies the offense?
- What is the effect of Section 156-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the arrest of an accused in a Hudood case?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 156-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ARSHAD JEHANGIR, J.---Rashid Iqbal petitioner seeks confirmation of his pre - arrest by this Court on 23-7-2006 in case F.I.R. 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 counsels 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 perusel.
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 zinabil- 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 of Rs,5,000 with .One surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within ten days.