ABDUL MAJEED Versus State
The petitioner, Abdul Majeed, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the glaring contradictions between the allegations in the F.I.R. regarding forcible abduction and Zina, and the complainant's own admissions in contemporaneous family suits filed by her acknowledging a free-will marriage and a claim for dower. The Lahore High Court held that the complainant's admissions in her family court suits rendering the abduction and Zina allegations irreconcilable created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that where contradictory stances by the complainant in civil or family proceedings cast serious doubt on the veracity of criminal allegations at the bail stage, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a complainant's admission of a free-will marriage in family court proceedings create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a criminal case involving charges of abduction and Zina?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when irreconcilable contradictions exist between the allegations in the F.I.R. and pleadings in civil or family litigation initiated by the complainant?
- Whether the benefit of doubt arising from conflicting stances of the complainant can be extended to the accused at the pre-trial bail stage?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Abdul Majeed through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 293 registered under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 with Police Station Karam Pur, District Vehari on 7-10-2006.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 22-1-2006 at about 3-00 p.m., Abdul Majeed armed with rifle, Abdul Latif with pistol, Muneer Ahmed with pistol and Mst. Nagina Bibi empty handed had forcibly abducted complainant Mst. Shamim Akhtar and they took her to Faisalabad in a car and there Abdul Majeed had been committing Zina with her and the remaining guarded them and during the same they had also obtained her thumb-impressions forcibly on some papers on fire-arm point and thereafter Abdul Majeed and Muneer Ahmed took her to Islamabad where she had an escape and took refuge in a Crises Centre there.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is delay of about nine months in lodging the F.I.R. I would not comment on this aspect of the matter anymore as it would prejudice either of the party at any subsequent stage in the case. It is, however, reflected from the F.I.R. that she has alleged her forcible abduction at the hands of the accused nominated therein and Zina Bil Jabr with her against him (petitioner). This is but surprising that she had brought suit for dissolution of marriage against him before Family Court at Mianchannu on 24-11-2007 as is evident from the copy of the plaint in such suit annexed to the petition. Para No.1 of the same is interesting to be noted here in verbatim.
4. This shows that she has averred therein that she had married him with her free-will on 14-2-2006. I fail to understand that she despite this has alleged her forcible abduction at his and others hands. The two situations, thus, are irreconcilable.
5. Another more interesting aspect of the matter is that her said suit was decreed ex parte on 14-2-2008 by the learned Judge Family Court, Mianchannu. She had also filed suit for dower against him on 10-3-2006. In Para No.1 of the plaint in that suit, she again has reiterated that her Nikah was performed with him on 14-2-2006 and it was in lieu of dower Rs.1,00,000.
6. This position certainly leaves room to entertain doubt qua the veracity of the allegation of her forcible abduction by him and others as contained in the F.I.R. It may be mentioned here that benefit of every doubt, at bail stage is given to accused.
7. Thus, in view of the above position that she in her said suit herself has admitted to have entered into valid Nikah with him with her free consent and the same was decreed ex parte, it is yet to be determined that if he ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence. His case, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars.
8. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction the learned Trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.
N.H.Q./A-320/L Bail allowed.