MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Amin, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 931 of 2005 for offences under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the investigation found the petitioner innocent and that the alleged abductee, in her statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claimed she had accompanied a co-accused voluntarily and that her thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers. Furthermore, the Court noted that in a related habeas corpus petition, the abductee failed to implicate the petitioner. Holding that these circumstances brought the petitioner's case within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted the bail. The principle laid down is that where investigation findings and subsequent judicial observations regarding the victim's statements cast significant doubt on the prosecution's allegations, the accused is entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry.
- Does a finding of innocence during police investigation constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the failure of an alleged abductee to implicate the accused in a related habeas corpus proceeding be considered for bail purposes?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' to justify the grant of bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM?UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 931 of 2005, dated 22-10-2005 for the offence under sections 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at ? Police Station_ Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. ? In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that on 12-10-2005 at 10-00 p.m. he along with other co-accused had abducted Mst. Shamila wife of the complainant for the purpose of fornication.
During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 8-11-2005. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tandlianwala, vide order dated 6-2-2006, hence this petition.
???????????
3. Heard. File perused.
Not only that during the investigation petitioner was found innocent record of the case also reveals that during the investigation Mst. Shamila (abductee) while making statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. specifically stated that she herself had gone with the co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Naeem who later on obtained her thumb-impressions on some blank papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photocopy of Nikahnama in support of his arguments that nobody had ever abducted Mst. Shamila. I have also observed that habeas corpus petition i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No.21/H of 2006 titled "Mushtaq v. S.H.O. etc." for the recovery of Mst. Shamila and co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Naeem was moved before this Court. The said case was disposed of on 10-2-2006 and the custody of Mst. Shamila was handed over to her mother because on reported queries Mst. Shamila did not answer as to where she wanted to go nor she made any statement before this Court qua the involvement of the petitioner.
The said circumstances in my view are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within two fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his B furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Bench.
H.B.T./M-391 ? ????????????????????? Bail granted.