INTIZAR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Intizar Ahmed, who was charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an F.I.R. alleging the abduction of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancy between the F.I.R. and the victim's subsequent statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court observed that while the F.I.R. implicated the petitioner in the abduction, the victim's statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. did not level allegations of abduction or Zina-bil-Jabr against him, placing him merely as a bystander at the scene. Holding that this material contradiction created a case of further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the victim's judicial statement contradicts the F.I.R. regarding the specific involvement of an accused, such conflict constitutes a case of further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Does a contradiction between the F.I.R. and a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the victim's judicial statement fails to corroborate the specific allegations of abduction made in the F.I.R.?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Intizar Ahmad, the petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.214 of 2002 registered on 8-8-2002 in Police Station Malakwal, District Mandi Bahaud Din under sections 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by one Muhammad Sharif regarding abduction of his daughter namely Mst.
Lubna aged 15 years.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. In the F. I. R. Intizar Ahmed petitioner is named as one of the persons who had abducted Mst.
Lubna. However, in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C, which was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Mandi Bahaud Din on 20-4-2002, she had stated that it was Azhar Iqbal accused who had called her from her house and then had taken her to the Dera of Zafar Iqbal where the accused including Intizar petitioner were present and there at the Dera of War Iqbal, Azhar Iqbal, Zafar Iqbal, Baloch, Ghulam Hussain and Muhammad Aslam had committed Zina-bil---Jabr with her. As such she did not level allegation of abduction or of commission of Zina-bil-Jabr against the present petitioner namely Intizar Ahmad and merely stated that he was also present at the Dera of Zafar Iqbal co-accused.
5. Since the statement of Mst. Lubna, the alleged victim, under section 164, Cr.P.C. Is in conflict with the contents of the F.I.R., therefore, to the extent of the present petitioner i.e. Intizar Ahmed it is clearly a, case of further enquiry into the guilt of the petitioner and he is thus entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is accepted and the petitioner namely Intizar Ahmad is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahaud Din.