MUHAMMAD YASIN And Others vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 479 registered under sections 11 and 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the conflicting statements of the alleged abductee and the findings of the police investigation. The court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a fourteen-day delay and that the alleged abductee provided contradictory statements regarding her marriage and the alleged abduction. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners were only alleged to be abettors, not principal offenders, and that the investigating officer had declared them innocent. Holding that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry into their guilt, the court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is weakened by significant delays, contradictory statements by the complainant, and a police finding of innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether contradictory statements by an alleged abductee in proceedings under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 justify the grant of bail?
- Does a police finding of innocence during investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the role attributed to the accused is secondary and limited to abetment?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Yasin and Nazir Ahmad petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.479 registered at Police Station Baseerpur, District Okara on 10-10-2001 for an offence under sections 11/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of fourteen days. The accused party has taken a defence of valid Nikah between the alleged abductee namely Mst. Zahida Bibi and Muhammad Ahmad accused and in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 29- 10-2001 the alleged abductee had confirmed the said assertion regarding her marriage with Muhammad Ahmad accused. However, in her statement, recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 28-3-2002 the same lady had taken a diametrically opposed stand and had alleged her abduction and rape by the accused party. This clearly shows that the said lady has been taking different stands at different occasions. Even according to the statement made by the alleged abductee under section 164, Cr.P.C. The role attributed to the present petitioners appears to be secondary in nature as they have been portrayed therein as abettors of the principal accused namely Muhammad Ahmad and no allegation of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr was leveled against the present petitioners. It is not disputed that during the investigation a Deputy Superintendent of Police had declared the petitioners to be innocent. After completion of investigation a challan has already been submitted in this case and, thus, continues custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection(2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Bail granted.