MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners in relation to FIR No. 20 of 2005 registered under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Jehanian, District Khanewal. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged abductee has contracted a marriage of her own free will and the police have recommended cancellation of the case. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged abductee is sui juris and has contracted marriage, and the police have recommended case cancellation, the case against the petitioners falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, laying down the principle that corroborative verification of a voluntary marriage by a sui juris abductee and police recommendation for case cancellation constitute sufficient grounds for making the case one of further inquiry.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged abductee has contracted a voluntary marriage?
- Does a police recommendation for case cancellation constitute grounds for further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- Is a sui juris female competent to contract a valid marriage of her own sweet will?
- Sections 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners have moved post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 20 of 2005 dated 15-1-2005 registered under sections 10/11 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 on the complainant of Muhammad Nizam at Police Station, Jehanian District, Khanewal.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution's story narrated in the F.I.R. is that on 6-1-2005 when the complainant was not at home the accused persons forcibly abducted his daughter and also injured his wife.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have no concern with the commission of offence. That Mst. Samina alleged abductee out of own sweet-will has contracted marriage on 5-1-2005 with Waheed, this fact was stated by her in the Court of learned 'Sessions Judge, Khanewal in an application filed under section 491, Cr.P.C. Further submits that as no offence has been made out and the police has recommended the case for cancellation so, the petitioners are entitled for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. During the course of investigation Nikahnama has been verified and it has been found that the alleged abductee being sui juris has contracted marriage with Muhammad Waheed and the local police has recommended the case for its cancellation. Petitioner is behind, the bars since 9-3-2005. In these circumstances case against the petitioners of further inquiry hence, they are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this order shall have no effect on proceedings during trial.
N.H.Q./M-1001/L Bail allowed.