MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Hussain, who, along with his brother Muhammad Hassan, was charged under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an FIR registered at Police Station Donga Bonga, Bahawalnagar. The allegations stemmed from an incident where the complainant's wife allegedly eloped with the petitioner's brother, leading to accusations of abduction against the petitioner and his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged abduction and the fact that the abductee had not been recovered. The Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry, noting that the abductee had not been found in the petitioner's custody and suggesting the petitioner may have been falsely implicated by the complainant. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged abductee has not been recovered from their custody?
- Does the absence of the abductee in the petitioner's custody constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail proceedings?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Petitioner and his brother Muhammad Hassan are involved in Criminal case F.I.R. No.211, dated 9‑1‑2001 under section 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Donga Bonga, Bahawalnagar. Allegation against Muhammad Hassan co‑accused of the petitioner were in terms that he developed illicit intimacy with wife of the complainant and then all the accused abducted her.
2. Muhammad Hassan and abductee have not been recovered so far.
3. Petitioners seek post‑arrest bail in the matter. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. Facts and circumstances of the case show that wife of complainant had eloped with Muhammad Hassan brother of the petitioners and they possibly were roped in by the complainant. Since the abductee has not been found in the custody of the petitioners, their case is considered to be that of further inquiry.
5. Petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1503/L Bail allowed.