MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE STATE and anothers
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Tariq, in a criminal case registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L(1)(2), 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R. and was only implicated through a supplementary statement recorded over five years after the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the lack of evidence beyond the belated supplementary statement and the fact that the petitioner was a previous non-convict. The Court determined that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, bringing it within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the commencement of a trial does not act as a legal bar to the grant of bail, thereby establishing that bail may be granted even when prosecution witnesses are being examined.
- Does the commencement of a trial act as a legal bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does a belated supplementary statement recorded years after the alleged offence constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- When does a case fall under the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Muhammad Tariq through the instant petition has prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R No, 453 registered under sections 337-A(ii)/ 337-F(v)/ 337-L(1)(2)/ 452/34, P.P.C. And section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadd), Ordinance No, VII of 1979 with Police Station, Saddar, Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat on 3-9-2005.
2. The allegation against him is that he along with others has enticed away his daughter-in-law Mst. Saadia.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he is not named in the F.I.R. The incident allegedly had taken place on 23-8-2005. The instant case, while, was registered on 3-9-2005.
4. His name for the first time has figured in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 14-12-2010. He in the same has stated that he nominates him (petitioner) as an accused and his such statement may be treated as the part of the F.I.R. And he may be arrested and his said daughter-in-law may be recovered. He in the same has also stated that he (petitioner) along with others has enticed away his said daughter-in-law due to illicit intimacy with her.
5. The learned D.P.-G. Has informed that the said daughter-in-law .Of the complainant has been arrayed in the case as an accused being consenting party.
6. It is admitted position on the record that except than this statement of the . Complainant, there is no other evidence on the record against him.
7. The question bf evidentiary value of such belated supplementary statement of E the complainant would be determined at trial as it was recorded more than five years after the alleged offence. His case, therefore, certainly calls for further inquiry into his guilt and the same so, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C
8. He is stated to be behind the bars since 18-2-2011 and a previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
9. However, the learned D.P.-G. Has informed that his trial has commenced and in the same many prosecution witnesses have been examined. The commencement of trial is not a clog on grant of bail to him. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).
10. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to extend him the relief prayed for.
11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.