AKHTAR ALI Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Akhtar Ali, who was charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction and commission of Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial given the evidentiary material available. The Court observed that police records indicated the alleged victim had eloped with the petitioner of her own volition and had subsequently been charged as an accused in the same case. Furthermore, the Court noted a lack of evidence corroborating the allegations of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr beyond the statement of the alleged victim. Holding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies solely on the statement of an alleged victim who is herself implicated as an accused in the same matter, and where there is no other corroborative evidence, the accused's guilt is open to further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail under the relevant statutory provisions.
- Does the absence of evidence other than the statement of an alleged victim, who is also an accused in the same case, entitle a petitioner to bail?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged victim is found to have eloped voluntarily?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Akhtar Ali, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.170 dated 4-6-20o-3 under section 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Langrana, District Jhang.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 2-6-2003 at about 9-00 p.m. Mst. Shahnaz Bibi had called Mst. Farzana Bibi, the virgin niece of the complainant on the pretext of easing themselves and she took her outside the house and therefrom petitioner along with Safdar Ali and Nasir Ali had abducted her (Mst. Farzana Bibi) in a car and he thereafter had been subjecting her to Zina-bil-Jabr in a house at Gutti Syedan.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is two days delay in lodging the F.I.R without any reasonable explanation; that except the statement of the alleged abductee there is no other evidence against him regarding the commission of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr with her; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non-convict. In support of bail plea, reliance has been placed upon the case of Ikhtiar Gul and 2 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1130(2); Muhammad Sajid v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1948 (Lahore) and Ghulam Murtaza v. The State 2001 Crl.J 16 (Bahawalpur).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he along with his co-accused had abducted Mst. Farzana Bibi, the niece of the complainant and thereafter had been subjecting her to Zina-bil-Jabr; that there is some explanation of delay in the F.I.R.; and that there is ample material on record to prima facie connect him with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he along with his co-accused had abducted the said girl and thereafter had been subjecting her to Zina-bil-Jabr.
7. The police record has revealed that the said girl of her own will had eloped with the petitioner and thereafter had indulged in Zina with him with her consent. The Police Officer present on the query has submitted that the alleged abductee has been arrayed as an accused in the instant case.
8. There is also no denying the fact that except than her own statement, there is no other evidence on the record against him of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr.
9. In view of the above, it is yet to be seen that if ultimately he can be held liable for the alleged offence of not. His case, therefore, is open to further inquiry into his guilt. The same, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, reference is made to the case of Ikhtiar Gul and 2 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1130(2), Muhammad Sajid v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1948 (Lahore) and Ghulam Murtaza v. The State 2001 Crl.J 16 Bahawalpur.
10. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
11. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds 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.
N.H.Q./A-993/L Bail allowed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ATIF ALI SHAHZAD vs STATE and another PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 837
- ATIF ALI SHAHZAD vs THE STATE and another 2007 P Cr. L J 649
- ATIF ALI SHAHZAD Versus State 2007 YLR 2683