MUHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 11 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution case alleges that the petitioners forcibly abducted a 13 or 14-year-old minor girl for Zina. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that a valid nikah had taken place between petitioner No. 1 and the alleged abductee, and that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights was pending. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, highlighting the victim's statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein she implicated both petitioners in acts of Zina-bil-Jabr, denied the nikah, and stated she became pregnant due to prior assaults. The court held that given the gravity of the allegations, including Zina-bil-Jabr resulting in pregnancy, the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether accused persons charged with abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr of a minor are entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim implicates them in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an alleged plea of nikah by the principal accused override the victim's explicit denial and allegations of rape for the purpose of granting bail?
- Are petitioners entitled to bail when medical or documentary evidence supported by the victim's statement prima facie links them to the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr resulting in pregnancy?
- 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
Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Ghafoor, the petitioners have sought for post---arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.217 dated 13-9-2002 under sections 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Chowk Azam, Tehsil and District Layyah.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 3/4-9-2002, Muhammad Ramzan (the present petitioner No. 1) has forcibly abducted Mst. Sumera, 13/14 years old, the daughter of the complainant for Zina with her.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that petitioner No. 1 Muhammad Ramzan is maternal uncle of petitioner No.2 Abdul Ghafoor; that story of prosecution is improbable as normally it not happens that such relation can together abduct a woman for Zina; that Nikah of the alleged abductee was performed with petitioner No. 1 on 15-3-2002 and she had been living with him as his were and became pregnant of him; that he (petitioner No. 1) has filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her and the same is pending adjudication before the competent Court and in such circumstances they have committed no offence; and that they are behind the bars. In support of bail plea the reliance has been placed upon the case of Pathan and others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 731 Lahore.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that both the petitioners have abducted the minor daughter of the complainant for Zina and thereafter they both had been committing Zina- bil-Jabr with her; that she in her statement before a Magistrate has stated that petitioner No.1 Muhammad Ramzan had even 5/6 months prior to her abduction had subjected her to Zina-bil- Jabr as a result of whereof she became pregnant and that she had never entered into Nikah with him and they have obtained her thumb impressions on certain papers forcibly and thereafter they had been subjecting her to Zina-bil-Jabr and in such circumstances they are not entitled to any indulgence and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the cases of Yaran Khan v.
The State 1996 PCr. LJ 984 Lahore and Rahim Dad v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 951 Peshawar.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel, for the parties with the help of available record.
6. According, to the F.I.R. Petitioner No.1 Muhammad Ramzan has abducted forcibly Mst. Sumera 13/14 years old, the daughter of the complainant. She as per record was recovered from him and thereafter had made statement under section 164. Cr.P.C. Before a Magistrate wherein she has levelled allegation against him and that he about 5/6 months prior to her abduction has subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr as a result of which she became pregnant and after her abduction they both (petitioners) has obtained her thumb impression forcibly on some papers and then also had been committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her. She has disowned her Nikah with him (petitioner No. 1).
7. The above position shows that there is not only allegation against him (Muhammad Ramzan) of her abduction but also Zina-bil-Jabr with her even 5/6 months prior to the same, as a result whereof, she became pregnant. She has also levelled allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr with her against petitioner No.2 Abdul Ghafoor. The case or Pathan and others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 731 Lahore is not applicable to their case as in the instant case there is allegation against petitioner No.1 that he even about 5/6 months prior to the incident of her abduction and subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr as a result whereof, she became pregnant, while no such position was there in the said cited case.
8. In these circumstances, I do not Tina them entitled to bail at this stage. In this regard, the reliance is placed upon the case of Yaran Khan v. The State 1996 P.Cr.LJ 984 Lahore and Rahim Dad v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 951 Peshawar. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-1810/L