BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Bashir Ahmad, who was charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following an allegation of abduction. The core legal question was whether the continued detention of the petitioner was justified given the absence of an allegation of Zina and the delay in the submission of the challan by the police. The Court observed that while the petitioner was accused of abduction, there was no allegation of Zina, and the investigation had failed to recover the alleged abductee, with no immediate prospect of the challan being submitted. Consequently, the Court held that keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period served no useful purpose. The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while reserving the right for the State or complainant to seek cancellation of bail should further evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime emerge during subsequent proceedings.
- Is bail appropriate when there is a significant delay in the submission of the challan?
- Can bail be granted in an abduction case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 where no specific allegation of Zina exists?
- Does the failure to recover an abductee justify the indefinite detention of an accused person?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Bashir Ahmad petitioner seeks grant of bail in case F.I.R. No,362 of 1998 dated 29-10-1998 registered undfr section 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station, Kameer, District Sahiwal.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and others abducted Mst.- Safia Kausar, sister of the complainant-Muhammad Rashid, in order to subject her to illicit intercourse.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner and that more than three months have passed but the police has not submitted the challan. Conversely learned counsel for the State has opposed the instant application.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no allegation of Zina against the petitioner who was arrested and detained by the police but during investigation he did not lead to the recovery of the alleged abductee. The Investigating Officer present in Court submits that there is no possibility of the submission of challan before the recovery of the abductee. In the circumstances, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. He is, therefore, allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. It would, however, be open to State/complainant to move for cancellation of bail, if any further evidence comes on record connecting the petitioner with the crime. The instant petition stands disposed of.