MUHAMMAD SHARIF alias MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 10(2), 13, and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the delayed FIR, absence of eyewitnesses, and findings during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that where the sole complainant has also been challaned and is a fugitive from law, there is no medical evidence, and an eight-day delay exists in lodging the FIR, the question of the petitioners' guilt warrants further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitions were accordingly allowed, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that further inquiry into guilt arises under the statutory bail provisions when the sole complainant's credibility is severely undermined and corroborative evidence is absent.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and no medical evidence supports the charge?
- Does the fact that the sole complainant has been challaned and is a fugitive from law constitute grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of accused persons?
- Are accused persons entitled to bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution case becomes doubtful during investigation?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This order shall dispose of Criminal ' Miscellaneous No,1423-B of 2001 and Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1380-B of 2001 as both arise out of the same F.I.R. No,47 of 2001, dated 18-2-2001, under sections 10(2)13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Police Station, City Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif registered on the statement of Mst. Afzal Bibi, wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day the complainant went in the evening to the house of petitioner Muhammad Sharif as the latter had promised that he would arrange some job for the complainant's son. Muhammad Sharif and Ijaz petitioner committed rape with her turn by turn.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is a delay of 8 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence; that two eye-witnesses stated in the F.I.R. Had sworn affidavit disowning the prosecution story and had appeared before the learned Additional Session Judge, Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif in support of the affidavit given. It is lastly contended that during the investigation the complainant's story was found to be false and the police came to the conclusion that the complainant is prostitute and that there was a dispute over the money, hence the case was registered.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the petitions by submitting that both the petitioners are specifically framed in the F.I.R., and the offences alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, on Court query it is conceded that the complainant has also been challancd but she is presently fugitive to law.
4. Heard.
5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence except the complainant who too has been challaned. There is no medical evidence in support of the complainant's version. She is stated to be fugitive to law. There is a delay of 8 days in lodging the F.I.R. In the afore-referred circumstances the question of petitioner's guilt would require further inquiry. Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed and subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court they shall be released on bail.