MUHAMMAD BAKHSH alias BILA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Bakhsh, who was charged under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and Sections 388(c) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of destroying evidence related to an alleged illicit relationship involving his daughter, was entitled to bail given the nature of the accusation and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the specific role attributed to him—assisting in the burial of a newborn—did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial had not yet commenced and was likely to be protracted. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause and the trial is delayed, the court may exercise its discretion to grant bail, particularly when the evidence against the accused is limited to peripheral involvement.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitute an offence within the prohibitory clause for bail purposes?
- Can the likelihood of a protracted trial be a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 388(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,305 of 2001 dated 28-12-2001 registered under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 388(c) and 201, P.P.C. At Police Station Kot Sultan, District Layyah.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the application of Allah Bakhsh and Allah Diwaya, residents of the same village, the afore-referred case was registered with the allegation that Mst.
Sughran Mai unmarried daughter of Muhammad Bakhsh alias Billa petitioner had illicit relations with Haji Muhammad as a result of which, she delivered an illegitimate child through Dr. Ghulam Nabi. The allegation against the petitioner is only this much that he destroyed the evidence of crime. He has been challaned alongwith co-accused under section 201, P.P.C. He was arrested on 28-12-2001. Co-accused Dr. Ghulam Nabi has been released on bail by the trial Court on the basis of affidavits submitted by the P.Ws. And the complainant, disowning the prosecution version.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in jail since 28-12-2001; that the offence, alleged against the petitioner, does not fall within the prohibitory clause, that the trial has not commenced and its conclusion is likely to take considerably long period.
' Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail. Heard. Record perused.
' Admittedly, the petitioner is father of Mst. Sughran Mai who became pregnant as a result of illicit relations with Haji Muhammad. The role attributed to the petitioner is only that he helped in burial of newly born baby and thus caused disappearance of evidence of offence. No other allegation is made out against him. He has not been charged with any offence falling within the prohibitory clause. Trial of the case is only to take considerably long period. In these circumstances, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.