MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi , Muhammad Anwar
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of attempted Zina. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidentiary material available. The Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on several factors: the unexplained three-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the fact that a co-accused was declared innocent during the investigation, and the Investigating Officer's conclusion that the case appeared doubtful. Furthermore, the Court noted inconsistencies between the complainant's wife's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the initial F.I.R. narrative. The Court also considered the petitioner's lack of prior criminal history and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing in the near future as grounds supporting the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the fact that a co-accused was declared innocent during the investigation be considered in favor of a petitioner seeking bail?
- Is the inconsistency between a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the F.I.R. a relevant factor for granting bail?
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J ----Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 372 of 2005, dated 2-12-2005 under section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 at police station Saddar Burewala District Vehari.
2. As per F.I.R, at about 3/4 pm on 29-11-2005 when the complainant's wife Mst. Shehnaz Bibi had gone to a nearby field of sugar-cane to ease herself, petitioner along with co-accused Muhammad Jameel attempted to commit Zina with her.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. There is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. not properly explained; that co-accused Jameel had been declared innocent; that it has been found during the investigation that the case appears to be doubtful. This finding is supported by reasons and the facts noted by the Investigating Officer; that neither the petitioner nor Mst. Shehnaz Bibi, wife of the complainant were found naked and statement of the said lady recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. is not in line with the story incorporated in the F.I.R.; that there is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in such like cases; that there is no likelihood of commencement of, trial in near future.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T/M-321/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus State 2012 YLR 1674