SHAHID alias SHELLO alias IMRAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for allegedly abducting a fourteen-year-old girl for Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged victim was not recovered from his possession and did not make any allegation of Zina against him in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim was recovered independently and made no imputation of Zina, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, warranting further inquiry into his guilt. The court established that mere abscondence does not bar the grant of bail when a case is otherwise made out for further inquiry under Section 497(2), and accordingly accepted the petition, admitting the petitioner to bail.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged victim does not make an allegation of Zina in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does alleged abscondence disentitle an accused from bail when the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the non-recovery of the victim from the accused provide grounds for further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Shahid alias Shello alias Imran, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,253, dated 25-10-1995 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Jalil Abad, District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that he on 19-10-1995 had abducted Mst. Rehana Kausar, the daughter of the complainant for Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he has not at all abducted the said girl for Zina; that she was not recovered from him and rather was apprehended by the police at Karachi Railway Station and brought back by her paternal aunt Mst. Azizan Begum from Edhi Trust, Karachi; that he had no knowledge of case against him and so the proceedings showing him absconder are fictitious; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non- convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he had abducted Mst. Rehana Kausar, the daughter of the complainant for Zina and intended to take her to Karachi but disappeared from the train in the way; that she when reached Karachi was lodged in the Edhi Trust there; and that he had remained absconder for quite a long time.
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 abducted Mst. Rehana Kausar, 14 years old, the daughter of the complainant for Zina. She admittedly was not recovered from him. She after her recovery had made statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before a Magistrate. She did not level any allegation of Zina against him in the same.
7. Admittedly she alone was apprehended by the Railway Police at Railway Station, Karachi and lodged in said Trust there and thereafter her paternal-aunt Mst. Azizan Begum had brought her back from there.
8. Hence, it is yet to be seen that if he ultimately can be held to be liable for the alleged offence or not. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
9. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
10. He allegedly had remained absconder for quite some time. His case has been found to one of further inquiry into his guilt. Hence, his alleged abscondence will not come in his way to the grant of bail when his case has been found to be one for bail.
11. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Multan/trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MAHMOOD vs S.P. KOTLI and 2 others 2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 13