MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition filed for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to two respondents, Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Yaseen, who were accused in F.I.R. No. 33 of 2002 registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The complainant alleged that his wife, Mst. Naziran, had disappeared and was seen boarding a bus with other individuals. The Additional Sessions Judge had previously granted pre-arrest bail to the respondents. The petitioner sought cancellation, arguing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary concession that should not have been granted to individuals nominated in the F.I.R. Upon review, the Court noted that the alleged victim, Mst. Naziran, did not support the prosecution's case and had stated she left of her own free will with Abdul Hameed. The Court found that the respondents played no apparent role in the incident. Consequently, the Court held that the initial grant of bail was justified and did not warrant interference. The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed.
- Is the mere nomination of an accused in an F.I.R. sufficient grounds to deny or cancel pre-arrest bail?
- Does the statement of an alleged victim indicating free will justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused?
- Under what circumstances does a court interfere with an order granting pre-arrest bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Yaseen respondents are accused in case F.I.R. No‑33 of 2002 under sections 10/16 of Ordinance, VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Pacca Laran, Rahimyarkhan.
2. Mst. Naziran wife of the complainant disappeared from his house. According to complainant, witnesses informed him that Mst. Naziran was found boarding a bus with Abdul Hameed and others.
3. Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Yasin thereafter submitted application for pre‑arrest bail which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Liaqatpur by order dated 8‑3‑2002.
4. Under consideration petition has been submitted for cancellation of bail allowed to the accused.
5. It was contended that anticipatory bail was an extraordinary concession and could not have been conferred on the respondents as they were duly nominated in the F. I. R.
6. Mst. Naziran did not support the prosecution case. According to record she had gone of her own free‑will with Abdul Hameed. The respondents apparently had not played any role in the incident and Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, was justified in allowing pre‑arrest bail to them. Bail granting order does not call for any interference.
7. Dismissed.
Application for cancellation of bail dismissed.
H.B.T./M‑1507/L