MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 223 dated 24-5-2006, registered under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the allegation of committing sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of a direct allegation of sodomy against him as he was only alleged to be present at the spot armed with a Sota, and the lack of progress in the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the specific penal provisions did not directly attract to the petitioner based on the allegations, making his case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that where an accused person is alleged only to be present at the spot without the core overt act attributed to them, and trial proceedings are delayed while the accused remains incarcerated, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person alleged only to be present at the spot armed with a weapon without committing the primary overt act is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. make out a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J,--- Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan, seek post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.223, dated 24-5-2006, offence under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. for the allegation of committing sodomy with Muhammad Naeem, nephew of the complainant, hence, this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that; the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to party faction. There is inordinate delay of eleven days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained and casts doubt on the prosecution story. As per contents of F.I.R., there is no allegation against the petitioner of committing sodomy with the victim, as the petitioner was present at the spot while Armed with Sota, which makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. Further states that; the petitioner is incarceration since his arrest and is no more required by the police for any further investigation. Challan has been submitted in the Court on 16-10-2006 but no progress has taken place so far, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail petition.
4. Having given the anxious considerations to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it reveals that; as per prosecution version, there is only allegation against the petitioner that he armed with Sota, was present at the spot, whereas, there is no such allegation of committing sodomy with the victim. The provisions of section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. do not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case and makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. The guilt or innocence of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording, evidence. The petitioner is in captivity since his arrest; challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has taken place so far.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted 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-300/L Bail granted.