SULTAN MAHMOOD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Sultan Mahmood, following the cancellation of his previously granted bail. The petitioner was initially charged under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. His bail was subsequently cancelled by the Sessions Judge due to his non-appearance on a scheduled trial date. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner should be re-admitted to bail given the explanation provided for his absence and the overall merits of the case. The High Court held that the petitioner's explanation for his non-appearance—a bona fide mistake regarding the fixation of the case—was genuine. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been found innocent during the investigation, and the complainant had submitted an affidavit exonerating him. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that procedural lapses like non-appearance, when explained as bona fide, do not necessarily preclude the restoration of bail, especially when the merits of the case favor the accused.
- Can bail be restored if the accused's non-appearance was due to a bona fide mistake?
- Does an affidavit from the complainant exonerating the accused constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Is a finding of innocence during the investigation a relevant factor for the court when considering a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Sultan, Mahmood petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,293 of 2001 dated 6-10-2001, registered under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, at Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad.
2. The file of this case reveals that petitioner was admitted to bail after arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 9-1-2002 but subsequently his bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 4-3-2002 on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner on the day the trial of this case was fixed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the relevant day petitioner was not aware of the fixation of the case before the Sessions Judge, that was the reason he did not appear and his bail was cancelled; that non-appearance of the petitioner before the Sessions Judge was a bona fide mistake on his part. Learned counsel for the State does not oppose this application.
4. The explanation given by the learned counsel about the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Thal Court when his bail was cancelled seems to the genuine. Even otherwise during the investigation petitioner Was found innocent. Similarly, the complainant of this case had also filed affidavit exonerating the petitioner, In this view of the matter this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.