Pakistan Case LawABDUL MAJEED Versus KHALIL AHMED and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of pre-trial or post-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a criminal case registered under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the propriety of bail cancellation in light of a delayed First Information Report and subsequent advancements in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since the trial had progressed significantly—specifically, the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had already been recorded and the trial was nearing conclusion—the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this late stage. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing the principle that the Supreme Court will generally decline to interfere with bail matters when the underlying trial has substantially advanced.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order refusing to cancel bail when the trial has substantially concluded?
- Does a delayed F.I.R. without sufficient explanation warrant the cancellation of bail?
- Is the recording of an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor when considering a petition against bail?
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Abdul Majeed petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4-4-1994 whereby his petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Khalil Ahmed respondent by the learned Judge in a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 380 of the P.P.C. Was dismissed.
2.The prosecution version was that on 16-12-1993 at about 10-00 a.m. The respondent trespassed into the house of Mst. Abida Parveen and committed Zina-bil-Jabar with her daughter Mst. Saima Azam who was all alone in the house. While leaving the house he allegedly took away ornaments and cash. The matter was reported to the police by Abdul Majeed, maternal grandfather of the alleged victim, on 20-12-1993 at 9-45 p.m. In the F.I.R. He had further stated that on 16-12-1993 he and Muhammad Arshad had seen the respondent coming out of the house of his daughter.
The respondent was allowed bail on the ground that as many as 37 persons of the locality had sworn affidavits to his innocence.
3.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The alleged occurrence took place on 16-12- 1993 and F.I.R. Was lodged four days later on 20-12-1993. There is no explanation by the complainant why he did not lodge, the report on the same day when on his own showing he had seen the respondent coming out of the house of his daughter. During the arguments we have been informed that the statement of the respondent under section 342 of the Cr.P.C. Has already been recorded and the trial is likely to conclude soon. In that view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The petition is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Fazal Karim464 judgments