Mst. SARWAR BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Sarwar Bibi, who was accused of committing Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman and a pregnant lady, was entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly considering the delay in lodging the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the unexplained delay of over two months in registering the F.I.R. constituted sufficient grounds to bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a woman, especially one who is pregnant, is entitled to the concession of bail, regardless of the nature of the offence, unless the case falls under the exceptions provided by law.
- Does an unexplained delay of two months in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a pregnant woman entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks her post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 529/1998, dated 18-10-1998 registered under section 16/7/79 of Islamic Law at Police Station, Harappa, District Sahiwal.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.1.R. Is that on 12-8-1998 at about 9-00 p.m., she was abducted by Zahoor Ahmad, her co-accused, and during subsistence of her earlier marriage with one Muhammad Ibrar, consistently was indulged in offence of Zina with Zahoor Ahmad, her co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is two months' unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. Further submits that the petitioner is wife of Zahoor Ahmad, her co-accused and the allegation of Zina is false. Copy of Nikahnama has been placed on file. The learned counsel lastly contends that the petitioner is not only a woman but also a pregnant lady, hence, her case falls within the ambit of first proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C., and she is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record minutely.
6. Allegedly occurrence took place on 12-8-1998 and the report was lodged on 18-10-1998 the unexplained delay of more than two months in lodging the F.I.R. Itself is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further enquiry. Even otherwise, petitioner is a woman and is a pregnant lady, so, her case is also covered under first proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. In the circumstances of this case petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.