MUHAMMAD RAEES AKHTAR Versus THE STATE
Muhammad Raees Akhtar petitioned the Lahore High Court for pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 238 registered under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Dehranwala, concerning the alleged commission of Zina-bil-Jabr with a 10/11-year-old girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail in a heinous offence involving a minor victim where the prosecutrix directly charged the accused. The court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that the victim herself made the statement, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and subsequent affidavits of persons not cited as prosecution witnesses held no relevance. The petition was accordingly dismissed based on the principles governing pre-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when charged with Zina-bil-Jabr involving a minor victim supported by the prosecutrix's statement?
- Do affidavits from persons not mentioned as prosecution witnesses in the F.I.R. hold relevancy for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disqualify an accused from obtaining pre-arrest bail under the established criteria?
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Raees Akhtar petitioner has sought pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.238, registered at Police Station Dehranwala, on 5‑10‑2003, for offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the complainant, who is aged about 10/11 years.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of 24 hours; that the petitioner has been roped in a. false case due to a money dispute between the complainant's father and the petitioner; and that the witnesses were close relatives of the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the annexures. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with 11 years old daughter of his tenant. The case has been registered at the statement of the victim herself, who has no motive to involve the petitioner in a false case. The learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking pre‑arrest bail on 14‑11‑2003, thereafter the petitioner got affidavit of Munir Ahmad and Abdul Rasheed, brother of Abdul Hameed and Wali Muhammad father of Abdul Hameed attested on 24‑11‑2003. Photo copies of the same are available on the record of the case. None of the above noted persons have been mentioned as P.Ws. in the F.I.R., therefore, their affidavits have no relevancy in the case whatsoever. The complainant and witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. fully support the prosecution version. The offence is heinous and attracts the provisions of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The criteria for grant of pre‑arrest bail has been laid down by the apex Court in the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal‑e‑Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82. The petitioner's case does not qualify for the concession of pre‑arrest bail. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
H.B.T./M‑223/L Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- RAZA MUHAMMAD and anothers vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1585