BARKHURDAR Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 171/2003, registered under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being implicated by the victim in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and notwithstanding a prior investigation report that had declared him innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, dismissing the petition. The Court reasoned that the initial investigation report declaring the petitioner innocent was superseded by a subsequent investigation conducted after the transfer of the case under Article 18(6) of the Police Order 2002, which found sufficient evidence of guilt. The Court emphasized that the victim's statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. directly implicated the petitioner in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby precluding the grant of bail at this stage.
- Does a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide sufficient grounds to deny bail in a Zina case?
- Can an investigation report declaring an accused innocent be disregarded if a subsequent investigation finds sufficient evidence of guilt?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 18(6), Police Order 2002
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.171, dated 21-8-2003 registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Kirana District Sargodha.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner along with his co-accused is that they abducted Mst. Naseem Bibi when she was going on a cycle with her father-in-law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared innocent in the first investigation and that the allegation of commission of Zina has not been levelled against him calling this case for further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has been directly involved in the commission of the Offence of Zina in the statement of victim recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. and the first Investigating Officer was influenced, and under political pressure exonerated the petitioner from the offence which eventually ended in his discharge by the learned Magistrate. Later on, on her petition bearing Writ Petition No.17559 of 2003, D.I.-G. Range Sargodha was directed to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order for transfer of investigation in view of provision of ,Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002. The investigation was changed and the subsequent Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against the petitioner.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner has been implicated by the victim in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. in the commission of offence of Zina. The finding of the Investigating Officer declaring the petitioner innocent has no bearing as this Court in Writ Petition No.17559 of 2003 has directed the D.I.-G. to hear the abductee/victim and pass an order for transfer of investigation. The matter was referred to the Standing Board under Article 18(6) of the Police Order, 2002 and the subsequent Investigating Officer after securing permission from the learned Magistrate arrested the petitioner and found him guilty. The challan has been submitted. This order of the subsequent investigation was also challenged through Writ Petition No.13899 of 2004 by the petitioner which was dismissed. The petitioner has prima facie committed an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, no ground for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./B-14/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.