HAKIM ALI Versus THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Hakim Ali seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 18/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the first information report and the absence of signs of struggle. The court held that the allegations against the petitioner require further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and consequently allowed the bail petition subject to the furnishing of appropriate bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the circumstances of a case cast doubt upon the immediate veracity of allegations through lack of physical evidence of struggle and unexplained delay, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether delay in lodging the first information report and absence of marks of struggle can constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the allegations against him require further probe and inquiry?
- Can bail be granted in a case involving charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the facts and circumstances of the investigation?
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Hakim Ali, petitioner, through this petition has sought his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.73 of 2001 dated 7‑3‑2001 under sections 18/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 452, P.P.C., registered at the Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan.
2. Mst. Rukhsana, the complainant, has stated in the F.I.R. that on 4‑3‑2001, when she was alone in the house, the petitioner/accused at about 1‑30 p.m. trespassed into the Haveli of the complainant and caught hold the complainant from her arms and forced her into a living room, where he removed the Shalwar of the complainant and also removed his own Shalwar. However, the petitioner/accused could not commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the complainant as the eye‑witnesses were attracted on the alarm of the complainant. It has also been stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was having a sickle at the time of occurrence.
3. The petitioner was arrested, on 14‑3‑2000 and was sent to judicial lock‑up on 17‑3‑2000. The report under section 173, Cr.P.C./challan has also been completed and sent up to the relevant Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. There was no mark of struggle on the person of the complainant. The Investigating Officer also could not detect any sign of struggle at the place of occurrence.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. I am, therefore, inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./H‑113/L Bail granted.