ABDUL SHAKOOR and another vs THE STATE
The matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Abdul Shakoor and Naureen Kazmi in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 10(2) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rawalpindi. The petitioners claimed they were lawfully married, whereas the prosecution alleged that petitioner No.2 was the subsisting wife of another person through a prior nikah. The core legal question was whether the subsequent marriage and alleged offence warranted further inquiry given the disputed validity and coercion surrounding the first nikah. The court held that the question of whether the subsequent marriage constituted a valid marriage or an offence under the circumstances was a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to both petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that disputed marital status and allegations of coerced prior marriage present grounds for further inquiry under criminal law.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the validity of a prior nikah is disputed on grounds of coercion?
- Does a contested previous marriage constitute a matter of further inquiry in offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.287 dated 18-6-2003 registered at Police Station, Sadiqabad, District Rawalpindi, under sections 10(2) and 11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
2. Ordinance (VII of 1979).
3. ' Both the petitioners i.e. Abdul Shakoor and Naureen Kazmi are asking for their post-arrest bail.
4. They claim that they are husband and wife through a validly contracted Nikah and have committed no offence. That the mother of Naureen Kazmi who annoyed from her marriage with Abdul Shakoor, was pursuing this case so that she marries a person of her choice.
5. ' Mst. Azmat, the mother of petitioner No.2, who was present in the Court, was also heard.
6. It is said in the F.I.R. Itself that whereas a Nikah took place between petitioner No.2 Naureen Kazmi and Syed Javed Hussain Shah, the Rukhsati had not taken place. But as she was the subsisting wife of Syed Javed Hussain Shah, she could not marry her co-petitioner.
7. ' It is the case of the petitioner Naureen Kazmi that the Nikah being referred to by her mother and the complainant never took place nor she was a willing party to it. All that was arranged under coercion. That she declined to marry said Syed Javed Hussain Shah.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that as the spouses started living a married life, it is yet to be seen whether an offence is made out on mere technicality of a previous Nikah which is being assailed by Naureen Kazmi.
9. ' Under the circumstances, this becomes a matter of further inquiry to the effect whether the subsequent marriage was a valid marriage or not. Both the petitioners are consequently admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.