MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 205 registered on 1-6-1999 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, for offences under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and sections 324, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the F.I.R. and against whom the recovered abductee made no allegations of Zina or abduction under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly when co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the uncontroverted submissions regarding the petitioner's non-nomination in the F.I.R. and the absence of incriminating statements by the victim justified the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not nominated in the F.I.R. and the victim implicates them in no manner during investigation, further inquiry into their guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure warrants the concession of bail.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and against whom no allegations are made by the victim under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused facing similar or more serious allegations serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail to a subsequent petitioner?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.205, registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari on 1-6-1999 for an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 324/379/148/149, P.P.C.
2. As per F.I.R., the accused named therein had abducted Mst. Sakina Bibi daughter of the complainant by using fire-arms for the purpose of committing Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R.; even Mst. Sakina Bibi after having been recovered, recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. but she has not levelled any allegation of Zina or abduction against the petitioner; that the main accused who have allegedly caused fire-arm injuries to P.W. Sher Ali as well as committed Zina with Mst. Sakina Bibi had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala vide order, dated 15-8-2003, that he is in jail since 29-1-2005.
4. Learned counsel for the State though remained unable to controvert the above submissions yet it is stated by him that it shall be in the interest of justice and fair-play if a direction be issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. For the uncontroverted submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-170/L Bail allowed.