NAJA BA T Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to two respondents accused of committing Zina. The petitioner, the brother of the alleged victim, challenged the bail grant, arguing that the offence was prima facie established by the Chemical Examiner’s report confirming the presence of semen and witness testimony. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court observed that while the Chemical Examiner’s report indicated the presence of semen, the alleged victim was a married woman whose husband had raised no grievance regarding her conduct despite allegations of long-term adultery. Furthermore, the Court noted a background of enmity between the alleged victim and her close relatives. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court held that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the bail order.
- Does the presence of semen in a Chemical Examiner's report automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail in a Zina case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's discretion to grant bail where no legal infirmity is demonstrated?
- Is the absence of a complaint from a husband regarding his wife's alleged adultery a relevant factor in bail proceedings?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner who is a complainant in a case registered under sections 10 and 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hald Ordinance), 1979 seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 28-4-1984 whereby the two respondents were admitted to bail.
The petitioner-complainant is the brother of Mst. Ghulam Fatima. She is said to have been married to one Mumtaz sometimes in 1975. He was employed in the army. It was contended that for years Ghulam Fatima had been living in adultery with Muhammad Khan respondent No,l. The first information report about the occurrence was lodged on 19th of July, 1983 complaining that Zina had been committed on the night of 10th and 11th of July, 1983. The respondents were arrested on 28th of July, 1983. The respondent No,2 was medically examined the same day. The learned Sessions Judge admitted them to bail on 7th of August, 1983. Subsequently their bail was cancelled on 7-3-1984 when a report from the Chemical Examiner was received showing the presence of semen in the vaginal swa bs. In this background, the two respondents approached the High Court for their re-admittance to bail. The learned Judge in the High Court admitted them to bail in the sum of Rs, 25,000 each with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Pind Dadan Khan. Hence this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence was prima facie made out as the husband of Mst. Ghulam Fatima was employed in the army and the report of the Chemical Examiner showed that adultery had been committed. It was also contended that as a result of the bail, the two respondents are still living together in adultery. There were witnesses who had deposed about the offence having been committed.
It appears that Mst. Ghulam Fatima is a married lady, her marriage having taken place as far back as 24-11-1975. It is alleged that the two respondents are living in adultery since long. The husband made no grievance of any such conduct on her part. There is a background of enmity between Ghulam Fatima and her close relatives. In the circumstances, the order admitting them to bail suffers from no such infirmity as may require interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.