IMRAN SHAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Imran Shah, who was charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the case and the lack of evidence regarding abduction or enticement, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the prosecution's witnesses, who were close relatives of the complainant, failed to intervene during the alleged incident, and noted the absence of any allegation of Zina against the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, and the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, affirming the principle of consistency in bail adjudication.
- Does the absence of immediate resistance by witnesses to an alleged abduction constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a co-accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- When does a case qualify as a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Imran Shah petitioner aged about 24 years was arrested on the 13th of December, 1999 and is in jail ever since awaiting his trial which has not yet commenced, in pursuance of a case registered vide, F.I.R. No.388 of 1999, dated the 23rd of October, 1999, under section. 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979 at Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore, regarding an occurrence which took place on the 21st of October, 1999 in the area of Mohallah Matman, Niaz Baig, which is at a distance of about one and half kilometres from the Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore, where the F.I.R. Was lodged on the 23rd of October, 1999 by Mst. Parveen Bibi.
2. According to the complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi, Imran Shah petitioner alongwith three others abducted her daughter Mst. Naiver Batool.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ingredients of section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979, are missing, inasmuch as, there was no abduction or kidnapping or even enticement within the meaning of the said section and oat of the three eye-witnesses, two were brothers of the complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi while the third eye-witness namely Rashid is her brother-in-law and finally that Syed Muhammad Raza co-accused against whom there are similar allegations, was granted bail by this Court vide order, dated the 23rd of May, 2000 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1945-B of 2000 and therefore, on the principle of consistency, Imran Shah petitioner too was entitled to the same concession.
4. Admittedly, there is no allegation of Zina against Imran Shah petitioner and prima facie it seems that' there was no kidnapping or abduction or even enticement within the meaning of section 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979. According to the prosecution three persons saw Mst. Naiver Batool abductee going in the company of the accused persons without raising any hue and cry. Out of three persons, two are stated to be the real brothers of complainant Mst. Parveen Bibi while the third is said to be her brother-in---law who could have resisted and pre-empted the accused persons from kidnapping or abducting Mst. Naiver Batool.
5. From the fact and circumstances of the case reasonable grounds within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. To believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, prima facie, do not seem to exist.
However, the case against the petitioner may be a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which entitles the petitioner to the grant of bail.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the such of Rs.50, 000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.