MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, who was charged under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an allegation of forcible intercourse resulting in pregnancy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the delay in reporting the incident. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the police investigation had declared him innocent, the six-month delay in reporting the incident remained unexplained, and there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the challan had not yet been submitted and the trial was not imminent, meaning the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has been declared innocent during the police investigation, there is an unexplained significant delay in reporting, and the trial is not likely to commence soon, the case warrants the grant of bail pending further inquiry.
- Does a police finding of innocence during investigation constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be denied bail when the trial is not in sight and the challan has not been submitted?
- Does an unexplained six-month delay in reporting an alleged offence of Zina justify the grant of bail?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 8, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 7‑9‑2000 in case F.I.R. No.122 :of 2000, dated 5‑7‑2000 registered at Police Station, Makhdoompur Peboran District Khanevxal under section 10(3), Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. According to the complainant, the accused forcibly committed illegal intercourse with her while she was out in a field to answer the call of nature. It was further alleged that she remained silent for six months on account of fear but could no more hold the same inasmuch she had become pregnant on account of the said incident.
3. For the petitioner it is stated that the delay of six months is not explained; that first investigation has declared the petitioner/accused to be innocent while the second has not been finalized so far, that there is no eye‑witness to the alleged incident nor the submissions made even if subsequently proved to be correct answer the requirements of section 8 of the Ordinance VII of 1979. Also it is claimed that since no recovery of the knife etc., was made from the petitioner his case‑ was that of further inquiry in the fact and circumstances of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the State however, opposes the prayer.
5. After considering the submissions made at the bar, I will agree that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. He has been declared innocent in the investigation so far conducted by the police, the delay of six months is not properly explained nor there is any direct evidence/witness of the alleged occurrence. The petitioner is on judicial remand and the challan has not so far been submitted. The completion of trial not being in sight the petitioner cannot be allowed to be detained for an indefinite period.
Accordingly this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑828/L Bail granted.