MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Hanif, in relation to F.I.R. No. 315 of 2004, registered under Section 10(2) and Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, involving allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the investigation status, the rule of consistency, and the statement of the alleged abductee. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. Crucially, the alleged abductee had recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, denying abduction and alleging mala fide intent by her father in lodging the F.I.R. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to a co-accused when another co-accused has already been released on bail?
- Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an alleged abductee denying the abduction be a ground for granting bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further police investigation?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J .---Petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.315 of 2004, dated 9-8-2004 registered under section 10(2)/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Luddan, District, Vehari.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mst. Nooran Bibi daughter of the complainant along with the other co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the F.I.R. and story of the same is concocted one; that the petitioner is behind the bars for; that co-accused namely Muhammad Altaf has already been granted bail and the petitioner under the rule of consistency also deserves for the concession of bail. Further submits that investigation is complete and petitioner is not required by the local police for further investigation. That Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abductee during her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., dated 30-9-2005 had stated that she was not abducted by any one.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to him.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioner is behind the bars. Investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial and petitioner is no more required by the police for the purposes of further investigation and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Muhammad Altaf co-accused has already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail. Further more Mst. Nooran Bibi the alleged abdutee got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Ist Class, Khanewal on 30-9-2005, wherein she had categorically deposed that she was not abducted by anyone and F.I.R. No.8 of 2004 and F.I.R. No.315/04 were got lodged by her father complainant with mala fide intention and despite his undertaking her father-complainant did not allow her to accompany her husband-petitioner.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-36/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.