MURTAZA vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 297 registered at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif, concerning alleged offences under sections 16 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, Murtaza, sought release pending trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions regarding further inquiry. The High Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay of three months. Furthermore, the prosecutrix had allegedly traveled and lived with the petitioner in Karachi for several months without protest. The petitioner also raised a defense of Nikah, and a suit for jactitation of marriage filed by the prosecutrix was pending before a Family Court. Holding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that the challan had been submitted, the Court granted bail, determining that continued physical custody served no beneficial purpose.
- Does a three-month delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the existence of a pending suit for jactitation of marriage a relevant factor in determining bail in a Zina case?
- Does the submission of a challan render continued physical custody of an accused unnecessary for the purpose of bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Murtaza petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,297 registered at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif on 3-9-2000 for offences under sections 16/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been (sic) that the in this case had been lodged with the delay of about three months. For many months before registration of the F.I.R. The prosecutrix had been travelling with the present petitioner from place to place and had been living with him in a big city like Karachi without raising any protest and without attracting the attention of anybody against the alleged excess being committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised a defence of Nikah during the investigation of this case and admittedly a suit for jactitation of marriage filed by the prosecutrix against the petitioner is presently pending before a learned Family Court. A challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation vis-a-vis the present petitioner and, thus, his continued physical custody is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further 'inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.