SULTAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction involving the complainant's wife. The core legal question before the court was whether, given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary record, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The court observed that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon during the alleged incident. Furthermore, the court noted an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 22 days in lodging the First Information Report. Upon reviewing the record, the court determined that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in reporting an offence and the accused is not alleged to have been armed, bail may be granted if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure provisions.
- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of weapons in the possession of an accused during an alleged abduction influence the court's decision on bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No, 272/94 dated 28-7-1994 under section 16-7-1979 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, alongwith Falak Sher, Bashir Naseer and Sultan, forcibly lifted the complainant's wife, Mst. Waziran, put her in a wagon and took her away. The complainant's father, Abdul, and his sister, Mst. Fatima, and some other villagers witnessed the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the F.I.R., the petitioner was not armed with any weapon that there is no evidence of commission of Zina and that the matter was reported after about 22 days of the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The admitted position is that the petitioner was not equipped with any weapon. The FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of about 22 days, for which no reasonable explanation has been furnished. The offence does not fall within the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate Sahiwal.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. KARIM KHATOON vs THE STATE 1997 P Cr. L J 1443
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 286
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE 1997 MLD 286