ZAHID MAHMOOD vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Zahid Mehmood in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of delayed lodging of the F.I.R., interpolations in the record regarding dates, a pre-existing background of ill-will, contradictory medical evidence concerning the victim's marital status and absence of injuries, and findings of innocence by two successive investigating officers. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that where material discrepancies, unexplained delay, previous animosity, and concurrent findings of innocence by investigating officers cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case, the accused makes out a clear case for further inquiry and is entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when two successive investigating officers have found him innocent?
- Does a delayed F.I.R. coupled with interpolations and previous ill-will between the parties make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the medico-legal certificate contradicts assertions in the F.I.R. regarding the marital status of the victim and shows no external injuries?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Zahid Mehmood petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,179 registered at Police Station Jaranwala, District Faisalabad on 2-4-2002 for an offence under section 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 three days. It has seriously been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original F.I.R. In this case contains interpolations regarding the date of the alleged occurrence and after having a look at the relevant documents it may be observed that the said assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be without any foundation. According to the F.I.R. The alleged victim namely Mst. Razia Bibi was unmarried at the time of the occurrence but the Medico-legal Certificate in respect of the alleged victim shows that her vagina admitted two fingers. The document appended with this petition as Annexure-C establishes that on 6-3-2002 the alleged victim had in fact contracted marriage and, thus, the assertion in thee F.I.R. That on the date of occurrence i,e, 30-3-2002 the alleged abductee was unmarried appears to be untrue. It has further been noticed that according to the F.I.R. The alleged victim had been subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by two culprits, including the present petitioner, but it is surprising to notice that the Medico-legal Certificate in respect of the alleged victim shows that she had not sustained any injury on any part of her body. Admittedly no report of the Chemical Examiner is so far available regarding the vaginal swabs of the alleged victim. The document appended with this petition as Annexure-B shows that since before the registration of the present F.I.R. And the alleged occurrence there was a background of ill-will and bitterness between the parties and thus, the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding false implication of the petitioner in a case of this nature may not be without any basis.
In the backdrop of the observations made above the finding of innocence of the petitioner recorded by two successive Investigating Officers has assumed a greater significance and relevance as far as the _ present petition is concerned. Nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner's custody and the investigation of this case has already been finalized. Thus, at this stage continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner, calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. Before parting with this order it may, however, be clarified that any observation made by this Court in the present order shall not prejudice the learned trial Court in any manner.
5. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.