MUHAMMAD NAVEED and others vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which declined post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail despite the petitioners' claim of innocence as per investigation reports. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The Court held that while investigation reports are relevant, they are not the sole criteria for granting bail. The Court emphasized that bail applications must be decided justly, fairly, and in accordance with the law based on the entire material available on record. The Court observed that the victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, corroborated by witness statements and medical evidence, provided sufficient grounds to decline bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that each case must be decided on its own merits.
- Are investigation reports the sole criteria for determining whether an accused is entitled to bail?
- Does a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute sufficient material to support the denial of bail?
- Is the discretion exercised by a High Court in refusing bail subject to interference if it is based on the material available on record?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-8-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3994-B/99, declining bail to the 'petitioners in a case registered against them under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979 vide F.I.R. No.54/99 dated 8-3-1999, P.S. Kot Nainan, District Narowal.
2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Nargis on 2-3-1999 at about 8/9 a.m. Came to the house of complainant, Liaquat Ali and took his daughter Mst. Shamim to Shakargarh with an excuse to make some shopping. Mst. Shamim Akhtar did not come back till evening and on inquiry, Mst. Nargis Bibi told that she has been left at Shakargarh. The P.Ws. Rafiq Ahmed and Munir Ahmed are alleged to have seen Mst. Shamim Akhtar in a car in the company of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were found innocent by investigation agencies. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the concession of bail, inasmuch as, it is a case of further inquiry. We are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the Court while considering the application for grant of bail has to decide the same justly, fairly and in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. The investigation reports may be relevant but not the sole criteria for grant of bail. Every case is to be decided on its own merits depending upon its facts and circumstances. In the case in hand, the learned Judge in Chambers while dismissing the bail application observed as under:-- "Mst. Shamim Akhtar in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Levelled the allegation of Zina-bil- Jabr committed with her by the petitioners. Munir Ahmed and Muhammad Rafique witnesses named in F.I.R. Have stated that they saw the petitioners taking away Shamim in a car towards Lahore. The medical report substantiates the statement of Shamim Akhtar that she was subjected to intercourse."
' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and persuing the material available on the record, we find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in declining bail to the petitioners does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
' No case for interference is made out with the well-reasoned discretionary order of the High Court.
' Resultantly the petition is dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Haroon Versus State 2025 YLR 1341
- ALI RAZA AZAM alias SANA Versus State 2022 YLRN 117