NIAZ AHMED alias BHOORA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Niaz Ahmed alias Bhoora, who was charged under Section 16 of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for the alleged abduction of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established sufficient prima facie evidence to connect the applicant to the crime to justify continued detention. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to recover the abductee from the applicant's possession and relied solely on the statement of a single witness, Sher Muhammad, which was not corroborated by any other evidence, such as statements from the bungalow owner or local residents. Furthermore, the witness's statement was not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond, with liberty granted to the complainant to seek cancellation should further evidence emerge.
- Does the absence of recovery of an abductee from the accused's possession constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case rests solely on an uncorroborated statement of a witness?
- Is a case eligible for further inquiry if the prosecution fails to record the statement of a key witness under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 16, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Applicant Niaz Ahmed alias Bhoora seeks bail in Crime No,651 of 1999, registered under section 16, Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20-11-1999 complainant was present in her house, whereas her daughter Amna, aged 16 years, had gone to work at. Bungalow No,B-8, Block 6, Gulshan-eIqbal, Karachi at about 8-30 a.m., but did not return. She started searching her personally and one Sher Muhammad, servant at the bungalow informed him that co-accused Kamran, applicant Niaz Ahmed alias Bhoora, co-accused Jamshed and Waziran had enticed her away with intention to commit Zina. The applicant was arrested on 25-11-199 and was sent up to face trial alongwith co-accused Mst. Waziran and Kamran.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that excepting the word of Sher Muhammad disclosed before police, the police has failed to collect any tangible evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of offence. According to him the case against the applicant was thoroughly interrogated, but the abductee was not recovered from his possession, as such his case requires further inquiry. He relied upon the case-law reported in 1994 PCr.LJ 2133.
4. On the other side, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has no objection if the applicant is extended the concession of bail.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant after going through the police papers concedes that police has failed to collect any implicating evidence except 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W. Sher Muhammad against the applicant.
6. It would be pertinent to note that throughout the investigation prosecution has not been able to record the statement of owner of the bungalow or any other inmate of the house to show that the abductee Mst. Amna was employed and was working there at the relevant time. Even 164, Cr.P.C.
Statement of P.W. Sher Muhammad was not recorded in this case. No one from locality has been cited as witness, as such allegation for the present against the applicant requires further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Accordingly, the applicant is allowed bail and shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. The complainant Mst. Mumtaz is at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail, if any evidence connecting the applicant with the commission of crime is put forth.