AHMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is accused of offenses under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, specifically regarding allegations of abduction and illicit relations. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial, given the circumstances surrounding the investigation and the evidentiary record. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eleven days, despite the complainant having prior knowledge of the alleged illicit relationship. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been declared innocent during the police investigation, with a recommendation for case cancellation. Additionally, the Court highlighted significant contradictions between the victim's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and her subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and accordingly, granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to categorize a case as one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the accused was declared innocent during the police investigation?
- Does the existence of contradictory statements by a witness under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of bail?
- What is the effect of a police recommendation for case cancellation on a bail application?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 419 of 2000, dated 25-7-2000 under sections 10/16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Bhawana District, Jhang. The precise allegation against the petitioner as penned in the F.I.R. Is that he had illicit relations with Mst. Noor Bakht. Statedly, two months prior to the registration of instant case, both of them were seen committing Zina. Allegedly, on the night between 13/14-7-2000 when the inmates of the house were asleep. Mst. Noor Bakhst was abducted by the petitioner alongwith other co-accused for the purpose of illicit fornication.
2. During the investigation, petitioner was taken into custody in this case on 15-6-2001 and his post- arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot vide order dated 6-11-2001 hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been observed that the complainant party had the knowledge about the illicit liaison of the petitioner with Mst. Noor Bakht. Statedly both of them were seen committing Zina about two months prior to the registration of this case. It is strange that no report was lodged with the police so much so even after the abduction of Mst. Noor Bakht report with the police was lodged after the delay of eleven days. In the circumstances of this case, delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry. Even otherwise, at one stage during the investigation by S.H.O. And S.P. Concerned petitioner was found innocent and case against him was recommended for its cancellation. It is also apparent from the record that Mst. Noor Bakht made two statements, one before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the other before the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. The stories narrated in both the statements are contradictory to each other. In this view of the matter, finding the ease of the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. This petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to ball subject to furnishing ball bonds to the time of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.