MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Arshad, who is charged under Sections 13, 14, and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following an alleged raid where he and a female companion were apprehended at a premises. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had hired the female for the purpose of Zina from a third party for a sum of Rs. 1,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary status of the case. The Court observed that the alleged payment of Rs. 1,000 was never recovered from any of the accused, and there appeared to be a lack of evidence regarding the actual hiring for illicit purposes. Holding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, the Court noted that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the petitioner had been in judicial custody for four months. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that continued incarceration served no useful purpose.
- Does the absence of recovery of alleged bribe money in a Zina case constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
- Can bail be granted if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of the essential elements of the alleged offense at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
This application for post‑arrest bail has been filed on behalf of Muhammad Arshad petitioner who is involved in case F.I.R. No.146 of 2001 dated 14‑12‑2002 under sections 13/14/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 at Police Station City Nankana Sahib, District, Sheikhupura.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Nazar Hussain, A.S.I. According to the F.I.R., on receipt of a secret information, a raid was conducted by a police party on the Baithak of one Mst. Sakina Bibi and it had apprehended a boy and a girl while attempting to commit Zina. Their names were subsequently disclosed as Muhammad Arshad and Mst. Seema alias Naheed. Mst. Sakina Bibi, however, managed to escape from the spot. Muhammad Arshad aforesaid disclosed before the police party that he had hired the aforesaid girl, namely Mst. Seema alias Naheed from Mst. Sakina Bibi for illicit purpose on payment of Rs.1,000. It was alleged that Mst. Sakina Bibi had let to the hire Mst. Seema alias Naheed to Muhammad Arshad for the purpose of Zina and hence the case.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused. It seems that the amount of Rs.1,000 had not been recovered from Mst. Sakina Bibi who is said to have escaped from the spot. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the hiring Mst. Seema alias Naheed for the purpose of Zina. However, there does not seem to be any evidence with the prosecution that he had actually hired her for illicit purpose. On the face of it, it appears to be a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner. As mentioned above the amount of Rs.1,000 had not been recovered either from Mst. Seems alias Naheed or from Mst. Sakina Bibi. It has been stated that the investigation is already complete and the challan has been submitted in the Court and that the petitioner has been in the Judicial lock‑up for the last about 4 months. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in the Judicial lock up for an indefinite period. Under these circumstances, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Therefore, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
S.M.A/M‑1405/L Bail allowed.