MUHAMMAD NAVEED and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following the alleged abduction and rape of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the existence of incriminating material on the record. The court examined the prosecution's evidence, including the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which alleged Zina-bil-Jabr, and supporting witness statements and medical reports. The court held that there was sufficient material on the record to connect the petitioners to the commission of the offence, the punishment for which falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, finding no merit in the contention that the petitioners were innocent or falsely implicated due to prior enmity. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution record contains sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the accused to an offence punishable under the prohibitory clause, bail is not to be granted.
- Is bail to be granted when the prosecution record contains sufficient material connecting the accused to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Does a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alleging Zina-bil-Jabr constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners seek bail in F.I.R. No,54 of 1999 registered with Police Post Kot Nainan, District Narowal, on 8-3-1999, under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. Briefly the prosecution version narrated in the complaint authored by Liaqat Ali is that his daughter Shamim Akhtar was taken on the pretext of shopping by Mst. Nargas Bibi wife of Muhammad Hussain to Shakar Garh City, having not returned by the evening, he made inquiry and found out from the witness that the petitioner had taken his daughter in a white car and was going towards Lahore. The abductee not having been recovered the inference drawn was that she was abducted for the purpose of Zina.
3. Post Arrest Bail was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge Shakar Garh on 15-7-1999.
4. Learned counsel has contended that the local S.H.O. and then the D.S.P Sadar Narowal have found the petitioners to he innocent and have put the whole blame on one Shabbir Ahmad driver by profession. It is stated that Mst. Shamim prosecutrix eloped with Shabbir Ahmad driver with whom she had amorous relations and that the petitioners have been roped in due to prior grudge with the father of the prosecutrix.
5. Conversely learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments of the respective counsels and have gone through the record.
Mst. Shamim Akhtar in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. levelled the allegation of Zina-bil- Jabr committed with her by the petitioner. Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Rafique witnesses named in the F.I.R. have stated that they saw the petitioners taking away Shamim in a car towards Lahore. The medical report substantiates the statement of Shamim Akhtar that she was subjected to intercourse. For the present there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence whose punishment falls within the prohibitory clause. At present I am not, inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail for the reasons given above therefore the application being without any merit is dismissed.