Mst. AMIRAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Amiran, who was charged under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of theft and illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and her status as a woman. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that the allegations under the Hudood Ordinance were unsubstantiated, there was a significant delay in reporting the incident, and the charge under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that as a woman, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an offence under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a female accused entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail?
- Can bail be granted when the allegations in the FIR lack supporting evidence and are delayed?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Mst. Amiran daughter of Abdul Rehman, petitioner, has sought her post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R.
No, 42 of 2001, dated 13-2-2001 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, read with section 380, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, at the very outset contends that the record of the case is not available.
3. Admittedly, the F.I.R. Is available on the file alongwith the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no other record is required for the decision of this petition. I see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The instant case was registered on the statement of one Abdul Aziz husband of the petitioner.
According to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner had developed relationship with one Muhammad Bilal and on 8-2-2001 when the complainant was out side from his house, the petitioner left his house alongwith some ornaments and cash worth Rs,1,14,000. It was informed by the P.Ws that they had seen the petitioner going alongwith Muhammad Bilal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the F.I.R. And order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, with their respective assistance.
7. It has been admitted in the F.I.R. That the petitioner left the house of the complainant with her own accord. There is no evidence whatsoever regarding the relationship between the petitioner and Muhammad Bilal, except the wild allegation of the complainant. There is delay of five days in reporting the matter to the police. The petitioner is a woman and is in Jail. The offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, cannot be applicable as such against the petitioner. Similarly, the offence under section 380, P.P.C. Is not punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, and does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the allegation against the petitioner that she took away ornaments with her is baseless as normally the ornaments belong to the lady of the house. The petitioner being a lady, her case is also covered under the proviso 1 to section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail, subject to her tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs, Fifty Thousand, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.