(Mst.) SHAMMO MAI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, Mst. Shammo Mai, who was accused of offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, alongside an absconding co-accused, Shana. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's release would facilitate the absconding co-accused in seeking bail. The Supreme Court rejected the State's contention, reasoning that any future bail application by the absconding co-accused would be adjudicated on its own merits, specifically considering the fact of his abscondence. Finding the case fit for the grant of bail, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The decision reinforces the principle that the bail application of an accused should be decided on its own merits, independent of the potential tactical advantages it might offer to an absconding co-accused.
- Does the grant of bail to one accused automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to bail?
- Should a bail application be denied based on the apprehension that it might assist an absconding co-accused in seeking bail?
- Section 16(1), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
Aslant Riaz Hussain, J.-The prosecution case, is short, is that Mst. Shammu Mai petitioner eloped with her fir t cousin, Shana. Both of them have been accused of an offence under sections 16(1) (1) 9 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. Shana co-accused has absconded while the petitioner has been arrested for the afore-mentioned offences. Her bail application was rejected by the High Court vide the impugned order. She has, therefore, filed the present petition of leave to appeal.
2. We issued notice to the State for today. The learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail to Mst. Shammo on the ground that this application is merely a device to get bail for Shana and that after she is released on hail Shana co-accused, who is absconding at present Shall surface and seek bail on the basis of the bail granted to her.
3. We are not impressed with this p ea. The Court to which Shana co-accused applies for bail will surely decide the matter on merits after taking into consideration the facts of his abscondence.
4. Considering the facts of the present case we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail to Mst Shammo Mai. We, therefore, convert the petition into an the same and order her release on bail on her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction ef Assistant Commissioner, Multan.