ZAKIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of attempting to commit 'Zina bil-Jabar' under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including a three-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medico-legal report, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated since September 2005 without the trial concluding. Crucially, the parties reached a compromise, and the complainant submitted an affidavit stating she had no objection to the grant of bail. The Deputy Prosecutor General did not oppose the petition. The Court held that while the offence was not technically compoundable, the complainant's affidavit indicated a lack of interest in prosecution, significantly diminishing the likelihood of conviction. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry.' The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds, establishing that a complainant's withdrawal of interest can justify bail even in non-compoundable offences.
- Can a complainant's affidavit indicating a lack of interest in prosecution justify the grant of bail in a non-compoundable offence?
- Does a compromise between parties in a non-compoundable offence render the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a significant delay in the conclusion of a trial a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 18, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,254 of 2005 dated 7-7- 2005 under section 18/10/79 (Enforcement of Hadood) Zina Ordinance, 1979 registered with Police Station, Gago, District Vehari.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed attempt to commit "Zina bil- Jabar" with Mst. Sajida Parveen daughter of the complainant.
3. In support of this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is contradiction in the ocular version and the medico- legal-report. She adds that the petitioners is behind the bars since 15-9-2005 and trial has1 not yet been concluded, which is violation of his basic right. In this regard she has placed reliance upon PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477 and PLD 2005 Karachi 255. In addition to said arguments she has further submitted that parties have entered into a compromise. Said assertion has been supported by Anwar Bibi, the complainant who has entered appearance and has filed affidavit in which it has been stated that she would be having no objection against grant of the postarrest-bail to the petitioner. The complainant has been identified by his counsel namely Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Awan.
4. In view of said development, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opted not to oppose this petition.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the parties have entered into a compromise; that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, though is not compoundable yet filing of the affidavit by the complainant means that she is no more interested to prosecute the petitioner. As such ultimately there is little chance of the conviction of the petitioner. Keeping this fact and other assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view, the case of the petitioner has become as that of further inquiry. Consequently this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Imran S/o Akhtar vs The State 2017 SHC 93
- IMRAN Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 20