ALI MUHAMMAD vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 134 dated 9.8.2003 registered under Sections 13/14 of the Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 380, 381-A, 337-J, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and whether the circumstances disclosed a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since a co-accused had been granted bail and a related jactitation suit was pending between the parties, the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry on the analogy of the Supreme Court dictum in Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal. The petition was consequently allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner subject to surety.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does a delayed supplementary statement implicating an accused, read alongside a pending family suit, make out a case for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
- Section 13, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 30.6.2006 in case FIR No, 134 dated 9.8.2003 under Sections 13/14 of (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 380/381-A/337-J/411 PPC at P.S. Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. His bail application has been rejected by a learned ASJ, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 31.7.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that her client is not nominated in the FIR. He was named along with one Esa in a supplementary statement recorded several months after the registration of the said FIR whereas the said Esa has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.7.2004 in Cr. Misc. No, 1938-B/04. According to her, he was abroad to work for gain and surrendered himself immediately after his return. She further contends that Mst. Zainab has filed a suit for jactitation against the complainant which is pending. Learned counsel for the complainant assisting the learned counsel for the State contends that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Esa as he had made the travelling arrangements for Mst. Zainab to travel abroad. According to his Mst. Zainab as well as Mahmood were placed behind the bars by the Saudi Gove nment and then deported.
3. I have gone through the available records. According to the contents of the FIR, the complainant married Zainab 3/4 months ago whereas he was already married with Ruqia who bore him five children. His brother-in-law Ghulam Hassan was not happy and ad gone to Saudi Arabia. He returned two months ago. On 8.8.2003 Mst. Zainab administered some intoxicant to the members of the family. we got up at 5.00 a.m. and found Mst. Zainab absent. On his hue and cry, the persons mentioned in the FIR arrived and he found the cash and several articles mentioned in the FIR missing. He expressed suspicion on Farid, Mir Khan, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ibrahim and Bilal.
4. He named the petitioner and Esa in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the said FIR. a had been granted bail by the Court as stated above.
5. Now to my mind apart from the fact that the bail is being prayed for on the same grounds on which it was granted to Esa, the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a copy of the plaint in the jactitation suit and stated at the bar that she has filed the family suit on behalf of Mst.
Zainab and it is pending. This being so, on the analogy of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and Others (PLJ 1984 SC 192), this is certainly a case of further inquiry. The Cr. Misc. is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.