MUHAMMAD ANWAR alias MUNAWAR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Anwar alias Munawar, in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the fact that he was declared innocent during the police investigation. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances and the investigation report, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that the occurrence took place on January 4, 2006, but was reported on January 22, 2006, without a plausible explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner had been declared innocent in the investigation conducted by the D.S.P. and that the applicability of the charged sections remained a matter for trial. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for bail. The principle laid down is that unexplained delay in reporting an offence, combined with a finding of innocence in the police investigation, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a finding of innocence in a police investigation be considered a valid ground for granting bail?
- Is the determination of the specific offence applicable to the facts a matter to be decided at trial rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.13, dated 22-1-2006 registered under sections 10/18. of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Qadirpur, District Jhang on the grounds that F.I.R. was sufficiently delayed without any explanation rendered by the complainant; that the petitioner was declared innocent in investigation; that the case is of an attempt to commit Offence of Zina and the ingredients required under section 18 of the aforesaid Ordinance have not been fulfilled calling for further inquiry.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail and submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, thus, he was not entitled to any concession.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The occurrence took place on 4-1-2006. It was allegedly reported on 22-1-2006. No plausible explanation has been given for the delay: The petitioner has been declared innocent in the investigation conducted by the D.S.P. Whether the offence falls under section 18 of the Ordinance or section 354, P.P.C. will be determined with certainty at trial. The petitioner has made out of a case for the grant of bail.
5. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-345/L Bail allowed.