MUHAMMAD ABBAS alias GHULAM ABBAS and 3 others vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The petitioners were charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following a delayed FIR. The core legal question was whether, given the conflicting statements of the alleged abductee and the significant delay in reporting the incident, the petitioners were entitled to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed that the complainant failed to report the matter promptly despite knowing the culprits, and the abductee's initial statement was recorded with a substantial delay. Furthermore, the abductee later explicitly stated she had contracted a free-will marriage with one of the petitioners and sought protection from her parents. The Court held that the case required further inquiry into the veracity of the allegations, satisfying the criteria for bail under the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to bail, establishing that where the prosecution's case rests on contradictory statements and unexplained delays, the matter warrants further probe, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, despite the complainant knowing the identity of the culprits, entitle the accused to bail for further inquiry?
- When an alleged abductee provides conflicting statements, including one claiming a free-will marriage, does the case fall under the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the prosecution's case against them is prima facie doubtful?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Muhammad Abbas @ Ghulam Abbas, Mushtaq Ahmad, Muhammad Arif and Ghulam Yasin petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,73, registered at Police Station Saddar Lodharan, on 25-1-2006, for offences under sections 10(3)111 of the. Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. According to prosecution case, on 16/17-1-2006 wife of the complainant went to the house of her parents at Assarwela. When the complainant came back to his house at 8/9-00 p.m. His daughter Mst. Naseem Bibi @ Saima was not present in the house. During search he was informed by the P.Ws. That his daughter Mst. Naseem Bibi was seen in the company of the petitioners and other accused. The complainant approached the accused, who after some reluctance confessed, that they had abducted daughter of the complainant. On 22-2-2006 the accused returned daughter of the complainant to him. However, the matter was not reported to the police till 25-10-2006 on the beseeching of the accused. According to photocopy furnished by the learned counsel for the complainant statement of Mst. Naseem Bibi was recorded on 17-2-2006 wherein she levelled allegation of abduction against the accused and Zina against Ghulam Abbas, Muhammad Arif and Ghulam Yasin accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact Mst. Naseem Bibi had contracted marriage with Muhammad Abbas with her free consent and for that reason Muhammad Abbas and his other relatives were roped in a false case. The learned counsel has referred to the later statement of Mst. Naseem Bibi recorded on 7-4-2006 wherein she claimed to be wife of Ghulam Abbas and stated that contents of F.I.R. Were false.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this application and has argued that the petitioners were duly named in the F.I.R.; that in her statement recorded on 17-2-2006 the abduetee had supported the prosecution case and had alleged that Ghulam Abbas, Muhammad Arif and Ghulam Yasin had committed Zina with her; that offences squarely attract the prohibitory clause of-section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioners did not deserve the concession of bail. The learned counsel (sic) statement dated 17-2-2006 Mst. Naseem Bibi (abductee) was forced to sign papers of Nikah Nama in Summandari, a place far of the complainant'0 residence; that the petitioners have committed offence not only against the individual but against the society at a large; that subsequent statement of Mst. Naseem Bibi recorded on 7-4-2006 was under coercion; that after this occurrence Mst. Naseem Bibi was again abducted by father of Mushtaq and Abbas petitioners, who was accompanied by other accused; that subsequent statement of Mst. Naseem Bibi abductee was of little worth as the same .Was recorded under coercion.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has adopted the line of arguments advanced by the leaned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that after abduction of his daughter the complainant never reported the matter to the police, although according to him he knew the names of the culprits; it is also noteworthy that according to F.I.R. The abductee was returned to the complainant on 22-1-2006 even then the matter was not reported to the police for three days; Mst. Naseem Bibi was not produced before the Investigating Officer on 25-1-2006 when the case was registered and her statement was recorded after more than three weeks on 17-2-2006; it prima facie raises the presumption that Mst.
Naseem Bibi was not prepared to support the prosecution case; in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 7-4-2006 by the Investigating Officer Mst. Naseem Bibi stated in clear words that she had contracted marriage with Muhammad Abbas petitioner with her free consent and no body had abducted her; it is pertinent to note that on 7-4-2006 Mst. Naseem Bibi (alleged abductee) appeared before the Magistrate and sought protection as she apprehended danger at the hands of her parents due to marriage with Muhammad Abbas; and on her application she was lodged in Dar -ul- Aman vide order dated 7-4-2006 passed by Mr.Zafar Iqbal Kamboh, Magistrate 1st Class, Lodhran.
7. In the above-noted circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioners need, further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, I admit the petitioners to bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand each, with one surety each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.