MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Farooq, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused enticed away the complainant's daughter for illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the trial proceedings had been stayed by the trial court, co-accused were already on bail, and the prosecution witnesses had sworn affidavits disowning the F.I.R. content. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry due to the witnesses' affidavits and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for ten months without being required for further investigation. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses have disowned the F.I.R. through affidavits and the trial is stayed, the case against an accused may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the filing of affidavits by prosecution witnesses disowning the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial proceedings have been stayed by the trial court?
- Can bail be granted to an accused charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the case falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,167 of 1999, dated 20-5-1999, under section 16/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Briefly stated is that the Nikah of Mst. Nasreen daughter of complainant, was performed with one Rafiqu-ur-Rehman 7/8 years prior to the occurrence but Rukhsati was not taken place; that on the fateful day Mst. Amina Bibi wife of Sher Muhammad alongwith co-accused Muhammad Farooq (petitioner), Muhammad Ayub, Atta Muhammad and Rashidan Begum enticed away Mst. Nasreen for illicit relations. It is alleged that efforts were made to search Mst. Nasreen Mai but she did not come back home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that the case is false; that the witnesses of the case, including the complainant, have sworn affidavits in favour of the petitioner wherein they disowned the contents of the F.I.R.; that no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Was committed; that the co-accused are already on bail; that the trial in the afore-referred case has been stayed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 10-12-1999 on account of private compliant filed by Rafiq-ur-Rehman, the alleged husband of Mst. Nasreen Mai.
4. The learned State Counsel has opposed the application by submitting that the petitioner has committed the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. And he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. It is not denied that the learned trial Court has stayed the proceedings in the trial of the afore- referred case. All the co-accused are on bail. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last 10 months and is not required for further investigation. It is also not denied that the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have sworn affidavits and disowned the prosecution case. In the afore- referred circumstances, the petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL RAZZAQ alias BHOLA vs THE STATE 2007 P Cr. L J 1788