ABDUL REHMAN MUJAHID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Rehman Mujahid, in connection with F.I.R. No. 301 of 2001, registered at Police Station Saddar, Rahimyar Khan, for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and subsequently added offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific circumstances of the case and the status of his co-accused. Upon review, the Court observed that there were no allegations of abduction or rape against the petitioner, and no recovery was effected from him. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's case was identical to that of a co-accused, Farzand Ali, who had previously been granted bail. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in the same case?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no allegation of abduction or rape and no recovery has been effected?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 368, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdul Rehman Mujahid petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,301 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar, Rahimyar Khan on 31-5-2001 for Offences under sections 16/11/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. During the investigation offences under sections 380/368/411/109, P.P.0 were added by the police.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Admittedly; there is no allegation of abduction or rape against the petitioner; no recovery was effected from him and his case is at par with that of Farzand Ali co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19-11-2001. The rule A of consistency, therefore,' demand, that the petitioner should also be released on bail. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.