Mst. SHAMMO MAI vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's rejection of a bail application filed by Mst. Shammo Mai, who was accused alongside an absconding co-accused, Shana, of committing offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner's release would merely facilitate the absconding co-accused's attempt to secure bail. The Supreme Court rejected the State's apprehension, holding that any future bail application by the absconding co-accused would be adjudicated on its own merits, specifically accounting for the factor of his abscondence. Finding the case appropriate for relief, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Multan. The judgment affirms that the bail of one accused does not automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to similar relief, as the latter's conduct remains a relevant consideration for the court.
- Does the grant of bail to one accused automatically entitle an absconding co-accused to bail?
- Should a court consider the abscondence of a co-accused when deciding a bail application for another accused?
- Is the potential for a co-accused to seek bail a valid ground for denying bail to an arrested accused?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 9(1), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J --The prosecution case, in short, is that Mst. Shammo Mai petitioner eloped with her first cousin, Shana. Both of them have been accused of an offence under sections 16 and 9(1) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) 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 for 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 bail 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 plea. The Court to which Shana co-accused applies for bail will surely decide the matter on merits after taking into consideration the fact, 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 appeal, allow 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 of Assistant Commissioner, Multan.