GHULAM YASIN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Yasin, who was charged under sections 16 and 10 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an F.I.R. alleging the abduction of the complainant's daughter, Mst. Nasim Mai. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding the marital status of the alleged victim and the absence of her recovery. The Court observed that the petitioner produced a Nikah Nama indicating a marriage with the alleged victim, while the complainant produced a conflicting earlier Nikah Nama, the validity of which remained unverified by the police. Furthermore, the victim had not been recovered, and the petitioner was not in her company at the time of his arrest. The Court held that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, satisfying the criteria for bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that where the prosecution's case rests on disputed documents requiring further investigation, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.
- Does the existence of conflicting Nikah Namas regarding the marital status of an alleged victim constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged victim has not been recovered and was not in the accused's company at the time of arrest?
- Can bail be granted when the validity of competing marriage documents remains unverified by the prosecution?
- Section 10, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Ghulam Yasin petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.551 of 2000 registered at Police Station Jampur on 29‑12‑2000 for offences under sections 16/10 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The relevant facts as given in the F.I.R. are that Mst. Nasim Mai daughter of the complainant was allegedly married with one Sajid Hussain about four years prior to the occurrence but consummation (Rukhsati) had not taken place. It is further stated that petitioner had developed relationship with Mst. Nasim Mai daughter of the complainant. It is added that on 25‑12‑2000 the complainant discovered that Mst. Nasim Mai was missing from the house but during search P.Ws informed the complainant that they had seen Mst. Nasim Mai in the company of the petitioner and others. According to the F.I.R. the complainant approached the petitioner who promised to return Mst. Nasim Mai on 27‑1‑2000 but as the promise was not fulfilled the matter was reported to the police.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 16‑8‑2001 and is in judicial lock‑up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that Mst. Nasim Mai has so far not been recovered and at the time of arrest of the petitioner she was not accompanying him. According to Nikah Nama placed on the record of the case the petitioner married with Mst. Nasim Mai on 4‑2‑1999 and the same was also registered The complainant has also produced a Nikah Nama dated 3.2.1996 showing Mst. Nasim Mai to be the wife of Sajid Hussain and the police officer present today before this Court has admitted that no evidence has been recorded so far to ascertain the validity or genuineness of the Nikah Nama. The matter was reported to the police after a delay of four days. In these circumstances the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of the subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. The prosecution would be free to move cancellation of bail in case some incriminating evidence is recorded by them after recovery of Mst. Nasim Mai.
H.B.T./G‑169/L Bail granted.