Hakeem MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner Hakeem Muhammad Ramzan sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 188 of 2001 registered under sections 16/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station B-Division, Rahim Yar Khan, during the investigation of which section 10(3) was deleted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the delay in reporting the matter, the absence of recovery from his custody, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that since the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and keeping in view the four-day delay in reporting and lack of recovery, the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of judicial discretion, relying on precedent.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does a delay in reporting the matter to the police provide grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of recovery of the alleged abductee from the custody of the accused a relevant factor in considering post-arrest bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner Hakeem Muhammad Ramzan has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,188 of 2001 registered at Police Station B-Division, Rahim Yar Khan on 23-6-2001 for offences under sections 16/10(3), of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. During investigation section 10(3) of the Ordinance was deleted.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he had developed some intimacy with Mst.
Parveen wife of the complainant who left her house on 19-6-2001 and was seen in the company of the petitioner alongwith three others.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 12-10-2001 and is behind the bars since then.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been noticed that the matter was not reported to the police for four days and Mst. Parveen was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner when he was arrested. There is only a general allegation by the husband of the abductee about four persons. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, relying on the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.