Shahadat vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Shahadat, who was accused of committing an offence under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the evidence. The Lahore High Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of four days. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period without substantial progress in the trial, and the prosecution's case relied solely on interested witnesses who were brothers of the complainant, lacking independent corroboration. Consequently, the court held that keeping the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely served no useful purpose. The court granted the bail application, establishing the principle that where a trial is delayed and the prosecution's evidence lacks independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to be released on bail pending trial.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of independent corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses a relevant factor in bail adjudication?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the trial has not progressed significantly during their period of incarceration?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.-- Shahadat son of Manak has been arrested in case FIR No. 599, dated 28.10.2000 registered with P.S. Tandlianwala under .Section 10(2) of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at the instance of Rajab Ali, with the allegation that the petitioner had developed illicit relations with Mst. Pathani, wife of the complainant and an 24.10.2000 at 10.00 a.m., the complainant saw the present petitioner and Mst. Pathani in compromising position in his house.
2. He raised hue and cry which attracted Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Anwar, brothers of the complainant. They tried to apprehend the petitioner but he escaped, ln the morning Mst.
3. Pathani also left the house of the complainant.
4. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad camp at Tandlianwala vide order dated 1.8.2001.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively.
6. The FIR was lodged with four days un-explained delay.
7. The petitioner was arrested on 30,0.2000 and no material progress has been made so far in conclusion of the trial. AII the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence are real brothers. Prima facie the allegation has not been corroborated by any other independent witness. No useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, I am persuaded to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.