SALEHEEN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR And 2 Other
This petition for leave to appeal sought the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court to two respondents, Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina, who were charged with offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner contended that the accused were charged with offences punishable by imprisonment for ten years and that the High Court erred by granting bail solely because the police no longer required the accused's presence, without explicitly recording its satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were not guilty. Upon examination of the facts, the Supreme Court noted evidence indicating that Mst. Ghulam Sakina had been divorced by her husband and that Muhammad Bashir was unaware of her marital status. The Court held that the High Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in granting bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition, affirming that the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters remains sound when based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- Does the grant of bail solely on the ground that the police no longer require the accused's presence satisfy the legal requirements for bail in offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail when evidence suggests the accused may not be guilty of the charged offences?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Cancellation of bail granted to the two respondents namely Muhammad Bashir and Mst. Ghulam Sakina is sought by this petitioner on the ground that the two accused/ respondents committed an offence punishable with imprisonment for 10 years, and, therefore, they should have not been allowed the concession of bail merely because the police no more requires the presence of the two accused, and that the bail has been allowed by the learned High Court Judge without recording the satisfaction of the Court that there appeared reasonable grounds for believing that the accused /respondents have not been guilty of. Offences under sections 11 and 16 under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (Ordinance VII of 1979).
2. We have examined the facts of the case. The two accused/ respondents, named above, were charged by the complainant Saleheen for offences under sections 11 and 16 of the aforesaid Ordinance. On the other side, there evidence that Mst. Ghulam Sakina accused/ respondent divorced by her husband Hayat Muhammad and that the accused /respondent Muhammad Bashir had no knowledge that Mst. Ghulam Sakina was a married woman.
3. We find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has exercised his discretion rightly and we see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order, dated 13th May, 1986. Petition is, consequently, dismissed.