MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners seeking release in a criminal case registered under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioners were accused of abducting a minor girl, as alleged in the F.I.R. The core legal question before the Court was whether, given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidentiary material available, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that there was a delay in lodging the F.I.R., one petitioner was not named in the initial report, and crucially, the alleged victim had sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioners. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of evidence regarding the commission of Zina, and that the petitioners had remained incarcerated for over four months without requiring further investigation. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioners, holding that in the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence and given the victim's exonerating statement, continued incarceration was not justified. The principle established is that an affidavit from the alleged victim exonerating the accused, combined with a lack of evidence for the specific charge, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting bail.
- Does an affidavit from the alleged victim exonerating the accused provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail in an abduction case?
- Can bail be granted when the accused has been in custody for several months and is no longer required for further investigation?
- Is the absence of evidence regarding the commission of Zina a relevant factor for the court when considering a bail application under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Section 10(2), Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,304 of 2000, dated 18-7-2000 under sections 10(2) and 11 Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, Police Station City Arifwala, Pakpattan Sharif wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day and time, when complainant was at home, petitioner alongwith two others abducted his 13/14 years daughter Allah Rakhi. During investigation she was recovered and the accused were challaned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner No,2 is not named in the F.I.R.; that the alleged abductee appeared before the learned District and Sessions Judge and sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioners; that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than four months and are no more required for further investigation.
3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition by submitting that both the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R.; that they abducted a young girl of the complainant and no case for bail is made out.
4. Heard, it is not denied that the alleged victim had sworn an affidavit exonerating the petitioners.
There is no evidence of Zina against them. They are behind the bars for the last more than four months and are not required for further investigation. This petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 each with two sureties each in the alike amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.