MAKHAN vs THE .STATE
This bail application arises from Crime No. 54 of 2001, registered under Sections 11 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant, accused of abducting the complainant's daughter, sought post-arrest bail on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial proceedings. The applicant contended that the principal accused had allegedly married the abductee, and due to the principal accused's absconsion, the trial had not commenced, with no charges framed since the submission of the challan in November 2001. Furthermore, the applicant highlighted that proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, had not been initiated, and the trial court was currently on leave, preventing the case from proceeding on merits. The Court, considering the delay in the trial and the circumstances presented, held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, subject to the furnishing of a surety bond in the amount of Rs. 200,000.
- Does the absence of the principal accused and the resulting delay in trial proceedings constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail to a co-accused?
- Can bail be granted when charges have not been framed for a significant period following the submission of the challan?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant claims bail in Crime No,54 of 2001 under sections 11/16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance registered at Police Station Peerumal.
2. ' The allegations against the applicants are that he alongwith other co-accused abducted the daughter of the complainant Mst. Ameena. All other accused were apprehended except accused Ghulam Mustafa who it is alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant had married the alleged abductee and the copies of the affidavit of free will and Nikahnama have been placed by the learned counsel. Said documents were obtained from the police. According to learned counsel since on account of absconsion of the principal accused case has not proceeded and even proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Have not yet been commenced and trial is not likely to take place. He has relied on the cases of Murad v. The State 1989 MLD 643. Mst. Razia Nawaz alias Razia Bano v. The State and 2 others PLD 2001 Lah. 42 and Muhammad Ali v. The State 2001 YLR 2843. Challan has been submitted on 25-11-2001. The applicant was apprehended on 9-3-2002. It is stated that since then no charge has yet been framed and the matter is not likely to conclude as the learned trial Court is on leave and the link Judge does not proceed with the case on merit.
3. ' In the circumstances and in view of the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel the applicant is admitted to bail, however, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.