AMJAD ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 134 registered under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur, on the allegation of abducting a woman for the purpose of Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed FIR, his omission from the FIR, and the lack of implication by the alleged abductee. The court held that the unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of the petitioner's name in the FIR, and the failure of the abductee to implicate him brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, establishing that an unnamed accused in a delayed FIR not supported by the victim is entitled to bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to bail when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR?
- Does the failure of the alleged abductee to implicate the accused warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. 134, dated 27-4-1998, under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979, registered at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur.
2. According to the prosecution case the petitioner had abducted Mst. Sakina Bibi alias Sheema Bibi for the purpose of commission of Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the case was registered after the delay of 8 days without any explanation. It was further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. The alleged abductee has not implicated the petitioner before prosecution as well as before learned Sessions Judge, Chunian.
4. The contentions were opposed by the learned State Counsel.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. There was no explanation of delay of 8 days in lodging the F.I.R. There is nothing on the record to show that the alleged abdcutee had supported the case of the prosecution. The case called for further inquiry.
6. In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, District Kasur.