MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Munir Ahmad, who was charged under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, along with Sections 420, 468, 471, 494, and 495 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of abducting the complainant's wife and fabricating a Nikahnama. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding the validity of the Nikahnamas, the completion of the police investigation, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case required further inquiry. This decision was based on the fact that the investigation was complete, no further recovery was required from the petitioner, and the Finger Print Bureau's report indicated that the signatures on both competing Nikahnamas belonged to the same woman. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that co-accused had already been granted bail, thereby entitling the petitioner to similar relief.
- Does the completion of a police investigation and the lack of need for further recovery from an accused constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Does the existence of conflicting evidence regarding the validity of a Nikahnama make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 494, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 495, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.142 of 1997, dated 17‑7‑1997 for offence under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 420/ 468/471/494 and 495, P.P.C. registered at' Police Station Fateh Sher, District Shahiwal.
2. The complainant Zulfiqar Ali has alleged in the F:I.R. that the petitioner (Munir Ahmad) and other accused persons came to his house and forcibly abducted Mst. Asia Perveen; put her in a wagon and carried her away and that Asia Perveen was married with Khalid Pervaiz on 29‑11‑1996 and that Munir Ahmad prepared a bogus Nikahnama of Mst. Asia Perveen.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by learned Session Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 27‑4‑1998.
4. The petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that he is innocent and has committed no offence and that the co‑accused of the petitioner has been granted bail, hence under the consistency of law, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail and that there is delay of 3/4 months in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation and that Mst. Asia being of (sic) age contrasted marriage with the petitioner according to the law and Sharia and that the Nikah of the petitioners with Asia is correct while the Nikah with Khalid Pervaiz is bogus and fabricated and that Mst. Asia has also filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against Khalid Pervaiz and that after completion of the investigation, the petitioner is no more required by the Police.
5. The petition is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and that Nikah with Khalid Pervaiz was conducted on 29‑11‑1996 as such in the presence of Nikahnama second Nikah could not be conducted and both the Nikahnamas were sent for verification of the signature and according to report of the Finger Print Bureau, both the Nikahnamas bear the signature of Asia Perveen and that the offence is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as the sentence is stoning to death.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides and have gone through the record.
7. The factum of denial of Nikahnama of Mst. Asia Perveen with Khalid Pervaiz, the investigation being complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and the opinion of the Finger Print Bureu that on both the Nikahnamas the signatures are that of Mst. Asia Perveen makes the petitioner's case one of further inquiry and also on the rule of consistency as the co‑accused have been granted bail, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./M‑1094/L
Bail granted.