SHAHADAT Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shahadat, who was charged under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of illicit relations with the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case and the delay in the trial process. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The Court observed that the First Information Report was lodged with an unexplained delay of four days, and the alleged eye-witnesses were all real brothers of the complainant, lacking independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest in October 2000 without significant progress in the trial. The key principle laid down is that where there is a lack of independent corroboration for allegations, an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and no reasonable prospect of the trial concluding in the near future, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of independent corroboration for eye-witnesses a relevant factor in determining bail in Zina cases?
- Can the lack of progress in a trial justify the release of an accused on bail?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. Shahadat son of Manak has been arrested in. case F. I. R. No. 599, dated 28-10-2000 registered with Police Station Tandlianwala under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at the instance of Rajah Ali, with the allegation that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Mst. Pathani, wife of the complainant and on 24-10-2000 at 10-00 a.m., the complainant saw the present petitioner and Mst. Pathani in compromising position in his house. He raised hue and cry which attracted Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Anwar, brothers of the complainant. They 'tried to apprehend the petitioner but he escaped. In the morning Mst. Pathani also left the house of the complainant.
2. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad Camp at Tandlianwala vide order, dated 1-8-2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively.
4. The F.I.R. was lodged with four days unexplained delay. The petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2000 and no material progress has been made so far in conclusion of the trial. All the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence are real brothers. Prima facie the allegation has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. H.B.T./S-634/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- IRSHAD ALI vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2861