SHAHADAT vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shahadat, who was accused of committing an offence under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was found in a compromising position with the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged with a four-day unexplained delay, the prosecution had made no material progress in the trial since the petitioner's arrest, and the alleged eyewitnesses were all related to the complainant, lacking independent corroboration. The Court established the principle that where there is an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. and a lack of independent corroborative evidence, continued incarceration of an accused without trial progress is not justified.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
- Is the lack of independent corroborative evidence a factor in determining post-arrest bail?
- Should bail be granted when there is no material progress in the conclusion of a trial?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' Shahadat son of Manak has been arrested in case F.I.R. No, 599, dated 28-10-2000 registered with Police Station Tandalianwala under section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance, 1979, at the instance of Rajah Ali, with the allegation that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Mst. Pathani, wife of the complainant and on 24-10-2000 at 10-00 a.m., the complainant saw the present petitioner and Mst. Pathani in compromising position in his house. He raised hue and cry which attracted Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Anwar, brothers of the complainant. They tried to apprehend the petitioner but he escaped. In the morning Mst. Pathani also left the house of the complainant.
3. ' After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad Camp at Tandalianwala vide order, dated 1-8-2001.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively.
5. The F.I.R. Was lodged with four days' unexplained delay. The petitioner was arrested on 30-10-2000 and no material progress has been made so far in conclusion of the trial. All the alleged eye- witnesses of the occurrence are real brothers. Prima facie, the allegation has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, I am pursuaded to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 withtwo surieties each in the like amount to the satistaction of the trial Court.