DOST MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Dost Muhammad, who was charged under Sections 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly enticing away the complainant's sister for the purpose of Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of corroborating evidence. The Court observed that there was a two-and-a-half-month delay in reporting the incident and that the alleged victim, who had implicated the petitioner in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was herself initially arrayed as an accused. Finding that there was no other evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requiring further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case rests solely on the statement of an alleged victim who is also an accused, and there is significant unexplained delay, the case warrants further inquiry under the bail provisions.
- Does a two-and-a-half-month delay in lodging an FIR regarding an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 entitle an accused to bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the only evidence against him is the statement of an alleged victim who is also an accused in the same case?
- Is a case open to further inquiry when there is no corroborating evidence to support the statement of the alleged victim?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Dost Muhammad, the petitioner has sought for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.65 dated 4-4-2002 under sections 16/10 of the Offence Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that he alongwith his unknown co-accused about two and a half months prior the registration of the case had enticed away Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the sister of the complainant for the purpose of Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in with mala fide intention; that there is two and a half months inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that she has been arrayed as an accused in this case but subsequently recommended to be got discharged from the same; that on the basis of compromise between her and the complainant she has been allowed bail in the instant case; that there is no evidence against him to connect him with the crime and so his case, is covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars for the last about six months and is a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. and that he alongwith his unknown co-accused has enticed away Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the sister of the complainant and had subjected her to Zina- bil-Jabr.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The fact remains that there is two and half months' delay in lodging the F.I.R.
7. Although the said lady in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police recorded on 3-7-2002 had leveled the allegations against him of Zina with her but she was also made an accused, in this case being consenting party to Zina.
8. The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that except her said statement there is no other evidence of Zina against him.
9. In view of this position it is yet to he seen that if he alone on her said statement can he held 'liable for the alleged offence. So, his case is open to further inquiry and is covered under section 497(2). Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and a previous non-convict.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The application is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./D-51/L Bail granted.