MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Younus, who was charged under sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following allegations of abetting the abduction and subsequent Zina-bil-Jabr of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the conflicting evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the alleged victim had provided divergent statements, including an affidavit denying the allegations of enticement or Zina, and had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage without mentioning any such incident. Finding that the prosecution's case required further inquiry, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, ruling that the petitioner, being a previous non-convict and currently incarcerated, was entitled to be released on bail subject to furnishing the required surety.
- Does the existence of divergent statements by the alleged victim regarding the occurrence of Zina constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged victim has filed an affidavit denying the allegations of enticement and Zina?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Younas, the petitioner has sought for after-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,68 dated 21-2- 2002 under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the Thursday prior to the registration of the case i,e, 21-2-2002, Allah Bachaya alias Kala had abducted Mst. Kausar Mai the daughter of the complainant with the abetment of Muhammad Younas and Muhammad Ramzan for Zina with her.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that in the F.I.R. The mere allegation of abetment in the enticement of the said lady is against him; that it was an elopement with the main accused Allah Bachaya on her part and not enticement or taking away; that she had brought suit for dissolution or marriage against her husband Muhammad Yousaf which is pending adjudication before a competent Court and in the same she has not levelled any allegation of enticement or Zina against anyone; that she had made divergent statements at various stages of the case and the same makes her story doubtful and so his cast is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into his, guilt; and that he is behind the bars and previous non convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he had abetted his co-accused Ailah Bachaya alias Kala in the enticement of the said lady and thereafter had been committing Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he had abetted his co-accused Allah Bachaya in the enticement or taking away of the said lady Mst. Kausar Mai and thereafter had also subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabr. There is on police record an affidavit dated 25-3-2002 shown to be of her (Mst. Kausar). In the same she had denied the allegation of her enticement or Zina with her by anyone. There is also the copy of plaint in suit for dissolution of marriage brought by her on 12-2-2002 against her husband. In the same too, she did not level any allegation of the sort against anyone. There are on police record her other apparently divergent statements in respect of the matter.
7. So, it is yet to be seen that if he had abetted his co-accused Allah Bachaya alias Kala in her enticement or taking away or committed Zinabil-Jabr with her. Thus definitely, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into I his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances of the case, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.