MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979 and sections 471, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, facing allegations of abduction, forced marriage, and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the unexplained delay of eight months in lodging the FIR and the contradictory statements of the complainant, who had earlier stated in a writ petition that she contracted marriage of her own free will. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry into his guilt due to the contradictory statements of the complainant and the unexplained delay in reporting the matter. The court laid down the principle that where the complainant's statement before the court in a constitutional petition is in direct conflict with a subsequent application for registration of a criminal case, and there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the case becomes one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is an unexplained delay of eight months in lodging the FIR?
- Does a contradiction between the complainant's earlier statement in a writ petition and a subsequent criminal complaint make the case one of further inquiry?
- Is bail warranted when the foundational allegations of abduction and forced marriage become doubtful upon a tentative assessment of the record?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- Muhammad Saleem petitioner. seeks post arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.654, dated 23-12-2002, registered under sections 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979, sections 471/467/468, P.P.C. at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner, as per the narration of the F.I.R are that he had abducted Mst. Razia Manzoor complainant, had procured forcibly Nikah Nama after obtaining her signatures after abduction under coercion and had also subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr as well.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence in the instant case took place on 18-4-2002 whereas F.I.R. was got registered against the petitioner on 23-12-2002 with the delay of eight months for which no plausible explanation was ever given. He has particularly referred Writ Petition No.9104 of 2002 filed by the complainant in this Court wherein she had categorically stated that she had contracted marriage with the petitioner with her free will and consent. He further submits that had the complainant been abducted then there was no reason for the father of the complainant not to register a criminal case against the petitioner instantly. Since delay of eight months in lodging the F.I.R. has not been explained, therefore, possibility of the deliberations cannot be ruled out. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and under the circumstances the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned DPG opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of the commission of heinous offence of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabar against the petitioner. He further argues that Nikah Nama has been declared fabricated in police investigation and the petitioner has been declared guilty. He also submits that the alleged Nikah Nama was not found registered any where. He lastly argues that the petitioner remained absconder for five years which shows his guilt.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role but this Court has to make tentative assessment on the basis of the available record, according to which, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner but minute perusal of the record reveals that the case against the petitioner is doubtful for the reason that the complainant had filed writ petition No.9104 of 2002 before this Court on 29-5-2002, according to which, she had refuted all the allegations levelled against the petitioner and submitted before the Court that she being sui juris had contracted marriage with petitioner with her free will and consent but subsequently she had resiled from her statement and had put up an application for registration of a criminal case in the Court of Mr. Tariq Iftikhar Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, Lahore meaning hereby that she had changed her earlier stance.. With this situation in hand, I am afraid, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the complainant as her statement before this Court is in direct conflict with her application which she subsequently made before the learned Justice of Peace regarding registration of a criminal case against the petitioner because she had earlier stated before this Court that she had contracted marriage with her free will and consent. Moreover, there is a delay of eight months in lodging in F.I.R which has not been sufficiently explained. Had the occurrence genuinely been taken place then there was no reason for the family members of the complainant not to get the case registered against the petitioner or any body else regarding abduction of Mst. Razia Manzoor.
6. Under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-75/L Bail granted.