AHMAD vs THE STATE
The petitioner Ahmad sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 229 of 2002 registered under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Dilawar, District Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail in light of affidavits and statements exonerating him by the victim and prosecution witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim and other material prosecution witnesses submitted affidavits and personally appeared before the court stating that the petitioner was not present at the time of the occurrence and was named due to a misunderstanding, the case against the petitioner fell squarely within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court established the principle that retraction or exoneration by key prosecution witnesses through affidavits supporting the innocence of an accused at the bail stage creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether affidavits from the victim and prosecution witnesses disclaiming the presence of the accused justify granting post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Does retraction by the complainant and key witnesses at the bail stage create a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hadood Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Ahmad petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.229 of 2002, dated 20-10-2002 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 registered with Police Station, DintHay, District Gujranwala.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Mst. Gulshan alleging that Mehboob alias Bini had taken her along to his house where three boys namely Ahmad petitioner, Jameel alias Ballo and Rafique Masih alias Khalifa were present and all of them committed Zina with her and also snatched her golden ear rings and also an amount of Rs.2,000 in cash from her mother.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala Mst. Gulshan alleged victim had filed affidavit to the effect that Ahmad petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence nor lie had committed Zina with her and that his name was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding. She has no objection to the grant of bail to him.
' Similarly Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W./mother of the victim and also Mst. Rehana Bangalan, P.W. Who had also reached the place of occurrence, according to the prosecution story had filed affidavits before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In here affidavit Mst. Rehana Bangalan had stated that at the time of occurrence Ahmad petitioner was not present and his name was mentioned on account of some misunderstanding. Mst. Inayat Bibi in her affidavit had deposed that at the time of occurrence Ahmad petitioner was not present.
5. All the three P.Ws. Mentioned above i.e. Mst. Gulshan, Mst. Rehana and Mst. Inayat Bibi are present before this Court even today and have supported the contents of their affidavits.
6. In view of the affidavits of the P.Ws. Mentioned above, including the victim it is clearly a case of further inquiry to the extent of the petitioner. In the light of the authority 1997 PCr.0 1107, the petitioner is clearly entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly the bail application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.