ZAFAR ULLAH Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Zafar Ullah, who was charged under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abducting the complainant's daughter, Mst. Shamaila, for the purpose of Zina. The petitioner contended that he had lawfully married the alleged victim and produced a Nikahnama as evidence, arguing that the case warranted further inquiry. Conversely, the State argued that the victim was already married to another individual and that the petitioner's Nikahnama was forged. The Court observed that the veracity of the conflicting Nikahnamas remained a disputed question of fact to be determined during the trial, as no evidence had yet been recorded. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the Court granted the bail application, emphasizing that the victim herself claimed to be the wife of the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the existence of conflicting Nikahnamas in an abduction case constitute a ground for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Should an accused be granted bail when the alleged victim claims to be the wife of the accused?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. A case was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No.748 of 2004, dated 20-8-2004 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad. It is stated therein that the complainant gave the hand of her daughter Shamaila to one Rashid about 1-1/2 years ago. No child was born out of the wedlock. She had come to see him (her father) about one month ago. The accused Zafar Ullah developed illicit relationships with his daughter, for this reason he prohibited the accused from visiting his house. On 25-7-2004 he went to sleep along with my family members. In the morning Mst. Shamaila (his daughter) was found missing. He was informed by Munawar Ahmad, Muhammad Razaq etc. that she was seen boarding a wagon along with Zafar Ullah. She was abducted for the purpose of Zina.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has married Mst. Shamaila on 14-7-2002 and she has not been abducted by anyone. A photocopy of the Nikahnama has been referred to. Learned counsel urged that it was a case of further inquiry and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
3. Conversely the learned A.A.-G. submits that Mst. Shamaila was married to one Rashid on 8-12-2002. The Nikahnama with accused Zafar Ullah is a forged one.
2. I have gone through the F.I.R. and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly no evidence has yet been recorded by the learned trial Court. The veracity of both the Nikahnamas is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court. It is a case of further inquiry. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the accused person behind bars. Mst. Shamaila claims to be the wife of the petitioner. Iii view of the above this bail application is allowed subject to furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
4. H.B.T./Z-107/L Bail granted.