Pakistan Case LawABDUL RASHEED Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused alongside co-accused of abducting a woman under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail where the alleged abductee stated she was not subjected to rape and no eye-witnesses to the commission of Zina existed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no grounds for interference were made out, noting that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to oppose the bail application in light of the victim's statement in the Civil Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that bail is appropriately granted when the primary allegation of Zina is unsupported by the victim's statement or direct eyewitness testimony at the preliminary stage.
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged abductee states she was not subjected to rape?
- Does the absence of eye-witnesses to the commission of Zina justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail?
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Abdul Rasheed petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 15-5-1994 whereby he allowed bail to Muhammad Ashraf respondent in a case under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2.The allegation against the respondent was that he alongwith other co-accused had abducted Mst. Aziz Fatima so that she may be subjected to illicit intercourse.
3.The learned Single Judge in the High Court allowed bail to the respondent on the ground that it was the admitted position that according to Mst. Aziz Fatima "she was not subjected to rape by her abductors". There is no eye-witness to the commission of Zina by respondents with aforesaid Mst. Aziz Fatima. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Advocate-General in view of the statement of the alleged abductee made in the Civil Court was not in a position to oppose the bail application. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. The petition is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Fazal Karim464 judgments