MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, which cancelled the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the allegation of committing Zina Biljabr. The Additional Sessions Judge had initially granted bail to the petitioner due to the non-receipt of the chemical examiner's report. Upon receipt of the report, the High Court cancelled the bail upon an application by the complainant. The petitioner challenged this cancellation before the Supreme Court, raising grounds such as delay in lodging the F.I.R., absence of violence marks, the complainant being used to sexual intercourse, and the solitary nature of the statement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail based on the subsequent chemical report and the circumstances of the case, declining to interfere. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Can bail granted by a lower court be cancelled upon the subsequent receipt of an incriminating chemical examiner report?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the absence of marks of violence and a delay in the F.I.R. warrant maintaining bail in a Zina Biljabr case?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench dated 2nd May, 1989.
2. ' A case is registered against the petitioner under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 (Enforcement of Zina Hudood Ordinance). The allegation is that the petitioner committed Zina Biljabr with Mst. Nargas complainant. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed bail to the petitioner because the result from the chemical examiner had not been received. The result was subsequently received and therefore, when application was moved for cancellation of bail in the High Court at the instance of Mst. Nargas complainant the learned Judge of the High Court cancelled the bail. It is submitted before us by learned counsel that there was delay in the lodging of F.I.R., that there were no marks of violence on the person of the complainant, that complainant according to the medical evidence was used to sexual intercourse, that there was only the solitary statement of the complainant herself against the petitioner etc. All these arguments had been raised before the learned Single Judge who rightly arrived at the conclusion that the bail allowed to the petitioner should be cancelled. We are not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge in the circumstances of the case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.