MUHAM MAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
Muhammad Rafique filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.197 of 1995 registered under sections 10, 14, and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of delayed action and lack of an identification parade, bringing his case within the scope of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the case was registered in 1995 and no action was taken against the petitioner for about four years, his case prima facie fell under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court accepted the petition and allowed bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing the requisite surety bonds, establishing the principle that unexplained delay in proceedings and absence of immediate action can constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in taking action against an accused makes out a case of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no identification parade has been held and no challan was submitted for a prolonged period?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 292, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Rafique, petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.197 of 1995 registered with Police Station Secretariat, Islamabad on 17-11-1995 under sections 10/14 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 292, P.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no identification parade has been held in this case, earlier no challan against the petitioner was submitted and now petitioner has also been challaned with mala fides of the police.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant case was registered in the year 1995. For about 4 years no action was taken against him. Case of the petitioner prima facie, appears to be one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.