MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 217 of 2001, registered under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, at Police Station Sadar Gojra. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged offense and the status of his co-accused. The Court observed that the co-accused, Khalida Perveen, had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that Khalida Perveen was his legally wedded wife, a claim supported by a Nikahnama and corroborated by the co-accused's own statement during the police investigation. The Court held that, in light of this evidence, it was prima facie difficult to establish the ingredients of the offense under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the existence of a valid marriage between the accused and co-accused entitle an accused to bail in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No,217 of 2001, dated 8-7-2001 under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No, VII of 1979 registered at Police Station Sadar Gojra District Toba Tek Singh.
2. During the investigation of this case, petitioner was arrested on 5-10-2001 and his post-arrest bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra vide order, dated 17-11- 2001 hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been observed that co-accused of the petitioner namely Khalida Perveen has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order, dated 21-1-2002 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,69/B of 2002 and the stand of the petitioner is that Mst. Khalida Perveen is his legally wedded wife (A Nikahnama is also annexed with the petition in support of this arguments). The police file produced before this Court also reveals that during the investigation Mst. Khalida Perveen made a statement that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, prima facie, it would be difficult to say that the ingredients of section 10(2) of (Ibid) Ordinance are attracted and this fact alone is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the fold of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.