ALI MUHAMMAD Versus State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ali Muhammad, who was arrested in connection with case F.I.R. No. 134 registered under sections 13/14 of the (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and sections 380/381-A/337-J/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail, and considering the existence of a pending jactitation suit between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that since a co-accused named in the same supplementary statement had been granted bail, and in light of the pending family suit, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court accordingly allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that consistency in the treatment of co-accused and the existence of a civil or family dispute affecting the motive warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a co-accused attributed a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does the pendency of a jactitation of marriage suit between the parties make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a delay of several months in recording a supplementary statement implicating an accused a valid ground for granting bail?
- Section 13, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J .---The petitioner was arrested on 30-6-2003 in case F.I.R. No.134, dated 9-8-2003 under sections 13/14 of (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 380/381-A//337-J/411, 'P.P.C. at Police Station Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. His bail application has been rejected by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 31-7-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that her client is not nominated in the F.I.R. He was named along with one Esa in a supplementary statement recorded several months after the registration of the said F.I.R. whereas the said Esa has been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 15-7-2004 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1938-B of 2004. According to her, he was abroad to work for gain and surrendered himself immediately after his return. She further contends that Mst. Zainab has filed a suit for jactitation against the complainant which is pending. Learned counsel for the complainant assisting the learned counsel for the State contends that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Esa as he had made the travelling arrangements for Mst. Zainab to travel abroad: According to this Mst. Zainab as well as Mahmood were placed behind the bars by the Saudi Government and then deported.
3. I have gone through the available records. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant married Zainab 3/4 months ago whereas he was already married with Ruqia who bore him five children. His brother-in-law Ghulam Hassan was not happy and had gone to Saudi Arabia. He returned two months ago. On 8-8-2003 Mst. Zainab administered some intoxicant to the members of the family. He got up at 5-00 a.m. and found Mst. Zianab absent. On his hue and cry, the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. arrived and he found the cash and several articles mentioned in the F.I.R. missing. He expressed suspicion on Farid, Mir Khan, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ibrahim and Bilal.
4. He named the petitioner and Esa in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the said F.I.R. Esa had been granted bail by the Court as stated above.
5. Now to my mind apart from the fact that the bail is being prayed for on the same grounds on which it was granted to Esa, the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a copy of the plaint in the jactitation suit and stated at the bar that she has filed the family suit on behalf of Mst. Zainab and it is pending. This being so, on the analogy of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95, this is certainly a case of further inquiry. The Criminal Miscellaneous is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-330/L Bail granted.