MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Aslam, who was implicated in a case registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was accused of involvement in a case of Zina-bil-Jabr alongside other co-accused, with allegations involving a financial compromise that was allegedly not honored. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the developments during the police investigation. The Lahore High Court observed that, during the investigation, the case against the accused was found to be false, and a report for the discharge of the accused had already been prepared and submitted to the court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry.' The Court granted bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that when an investigation report concludes that a case is false and seeks the discharge of the accused, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending the final determination of the matter.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the police investigation report concludes the case is false and recommends discharge?
- Does the submission of a discharge report by the police constitute grounds for 'further inquiry' under bail jurisprudence?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Muhammad Aslam son of Said Muhammad petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. Nm226 of 2002 dated 11‑7‑2002 and sections 10/11 of the Enforcement of Zina (Offence of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 registered with Police Station Sadar Kamoke District Gujranwala, at the instance of Mst. Seeman Bibi, with the allegation that Javed son of Ali Muhammad, Salam son of Nawab Din forcibly took away daughter of the complainant Mst. Sumaira Bibi who was subjects Zina‑bil‑Jabr. The petitioner and his co‑accused Ch. Muzammal Hussain effected compromise between the parties and received Rs.36,000, from the accused to be paid to the complainant but they failed to pay the amount. The petitioner was declined after arrest bail by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, vide order dated 25‑7‑2002 Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been, heard exhaustive and record has been perused.
3. Admittedly, during investigation the case has been found false and the report for discharge of the accused has already been prepared which has been submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction which makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry, therefore, he is Emitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.M.A.H./M‑1518/L Bail granted.