SHAHID MAQBOOL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shahid Maqbool against the refusal of bail by the lower courts in a criminal case involving offences under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner where the victim of tender age made allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the defense failed to produce the alleged Nikahnama or examine witnesses during the police investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no valid ground was made out to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that where a prima facie case involving serious allegations is supported by statutory statements and the defense fails to substantiate claims of a valid marriage at the initial stage, the discretionary refusal of bail by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
- Whether bail can be refused to an accused facing charges under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 when the victim makes an allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Does the failure to produce a Nikahnama or examine defense witnesses during the police investigation affect the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court refusing bail without sufficient grounds for interference?
- Section 10, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 11, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner is accused of offence under sections 10 and 11 of the Ordinance, VII of 1979. He has been refused bail by two Courts. The High Court observed as hereunder:- "Admittedly, the abductee seems to be of tender age. She levelled allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr against the petitioner in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. During cross-examination, no suggestion was put to her whether she entered into Nikah with the petitioner and put her signatures on the Nikahnama or not; over and above this, neither the alleged Nikahnama was produced before the police nor witnesses of the Nikah were examined in defence by the petitioner. "
2. ' No ground made out for interfering with this discretionary order. Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- ZABAR vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 557