Syed ADNAN ASGHAR vs STATE, etc.
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Syed Adnan Asghar against the State and another, where the petitioner was accused of attempting to commit zina-bil-jabr after being called to perform exorcism rituals at the complainant's house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant procedural law. The Lahore High Court held that since the complainant remained safe from unchastity and no overt act constituting the full offence of zina-bil-jabr was noticed, and further because the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and investigation was complete, the petitioner made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that courts must decide matters without prejudice despite the detestable nature of the allegations, and that keeping an accused in custody serves no useful purpose when the investigation is complete and the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the completion of investigation justify the release of an accused on bail when further incarceration would not advance the prosecution case?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Munazza Shaheen lives with her children in absence of her husband who reported to have been living at Itly and during night time she along with her children used to feel frights by cacodemons/incubuses as well as apparitions along with horrific voices, she contacted her husband in Italy and on his direction she contacted the petitioner for dispelling and exorcizing, the nightmares, who demanded Rs, 30,000/- paid 10,000/- of the same, getting an opportunity petitioner attempted to commit zina-bil-jabr with her with warning not to be disclosed. Illatively complainant resorted to law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged falsity of the case, motivated involvement of the petitioner and maintained that alleged offences are not constituted against him who is in prison, since 15.05.2016 whereas investigation has been concluded, therefore, prima facie a case for the grant of bail is made out in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned D.P.G has vied the arguments and maintained that fictitious faith heelers illude simple and innocent women by swindling money up to their chastities, therefore, such like persons discriminately be denied discretionary relief to save innocent unlettered women.
4. Heard intently. Record perused.
5. As per prosecution's own case complainant remains-saved to unchaste and the Court has not noticed any act perpetuated by the petitioner to commit zina-bil-jabr. Offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Albeit. Such like incidents are noticed by detestability ,yet the Courts are bound to decide the cases without the question of parte-pris.
Investigation is complete and to keep the petitioner behind the bars would not advance the prosecution case, therefore, instant application is accepted and petitioner is granted bail provided his submission of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.