MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 219/2001, registered under Sections 16 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Sahuka, District Vehari. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, enticed away the complainant's wife for the purpose of marriage. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the allegations and his relationship to the alleged abductee. The Court observed that the petitioner was the maternal uncle of the alleged abductee and that there was no specific allegation of Zina against him. Furthermore, the Court determined that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Considering the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and his period of incarceration, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, bail should generally be granted, particularly when the accused has no prior criminal record.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of an allegation of Zina in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 impact the consideration of a bail application?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Shafi petitioner has sought for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.219 dated 24-10-2001, under sections 16/10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979, registered with Police Station Sahuka, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 7-10-2001 he alongwith his were Mst. Anwar Bibi and Ghulam Hussain had enticed away Mst. Motia Bibi, the were of the complainant Fayyaz Ahmad for her hand for his son Muhammad Arshad alias Shadoo.
3. The bail has been sought on the ground that he has falsely been roped in; that he is real maternal uncle of the alleged abductee, so there arises no question of her enticement by him and others; that there is no allegation of Zina against him; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non -- convict.
4. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the application.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. He is admittedly the real maternal uncle of the alleged abductee Mst. Motia Bibi. There is no allegation of Zina against him. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars for the last about nine months and stated to be previous non-convict.
7. I, therefore, accept this application and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.