MUHAMMAD ALTAF Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Altaf, who was charged under Section 11 and Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction of a minor for Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who acted as a witness to the Nikah of the alleged abductee and the principal accused, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the statement of the alleged abductee. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the alleged abductee had appeared before a Magistrate, expressed a desire for release from Darul Aman, and affirmed her marriage to the co-accused, thereby negating the immediate allegations of Zina against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail to the accused, who was a previous non-convict.
- Does the statement of an alleged abductee affirming her marriage to the co-accused provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accessory under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a witness to a contested Nikahnama entitled to bail when the principal charge of abduction for Zina is contradicted by the alleged abductee's own statement before a Magistrate?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Altaf, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.258 dated 17-11-2002 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added section 10(2) of the same in it.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 4-11-2002 Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, 17/18 years old; the daughter of the complainant for Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that there is delay of 13 days without any reasonable explanation; that he is merely witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen; that there is no allegation of Zina against him, that co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and Mgt. Riffat are legally wedded spouses and so no offence has been committed by anyone; that he is behind the bars for the last about four months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel, for she complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is one of the accused persons who had forcibly abducted the daughter of the complainant for Zina; and that he is also witness of Nikah between Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Riffat Perveen while their Nikahanama has been found by the police to be forged one and not genuine and so he is connected with the offence.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he alongwith Muhammad Ramzan and others had forcibly abducted Mst. Riffat Perveen, the daughter of the complainant for Zina. Besides than this, he is also said to be one of the witnesses of the Niakh between co-accused Muhammad Ramzan and the alleged abductee.
7. There is with the petition, the copy of application submitted by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused for her release from the Darul Aman. In the same, on 17-12-2002, she was produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, Multan. She has stated before him that she wants her release and has owned Muhammad Ramzan to be her husband. There is no allegation of Zina against him. Hence, his case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, find him entitled to bail The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1881/L Bail granted.