MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for after-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Aslam, facing charges under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner had previously been denied bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the subsequent murder of the alleged abductee, who was the star prosecution witness, constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant the grant of bail. The Court held that the death of the star witness significantly weakened the prosecution's case, rendering the likelihood of conviction uncertain and bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry. Emphasizing the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment, the Court determined that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation purposes. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, holding that the absence of the key witness necessitated the petitioner's release pending trial, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the death of the star prosecution witness constitute a ground for granting bail in a case where it was previously refused?
- Is bail to be withheld as a form of punishment?
- When does a criminal case become a matter of further inquiry regarding the grant of bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Aslam seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 51 dated 5‑3‑2003 under section 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered with Police Station, Bhera District Sargodha at the instance of Umar Hayat.
2. The petitioner earlier moved this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No.4097‑B of 2003 for grant of after arrest bail which was declined by this Court on 31‑7‑2003. He has repeated this petition on the ground that no statement of the alleged abductee was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. after her recovery and now she has been murdered on 25‑8‑2003 and in this regard case has already been registered vide F.I.R. No.155 at Police Station, Phulrwan District, Sargodha at the instance of Muhammad Munir Ahmad, complainant, therefore, after death of Shamim, who was star witness of the case, there is no chance for conviction of the petitioner after trial, so, he be enlarged on bail.
3. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Although the petitioner was declined after arrest bail by this Court on merits, but in absence of star prosecution witness i.e. Shamim Akhtar, who has admittedly been murdered, there is no chance for conviction of the petitioner after trial. It is settled law that bail cannot be withheld as punishment. Petitioner has placed on record copy of F.I.R, No.155 dated 25‑7‑2003 registered at Police Station Phulrwan, and in absence of statement of Shamim Akhtar, under section 164, Cr.P.C., the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. He is no more required for investigation, therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./M‑39/L Bail allowed.