KHADIM HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought confirmation of their ad interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising from an F.I.R. alleging abduction and illicit relations during the subsistence of a marriage. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the existence of a disputed Nikahnama and a claim of valid marriage following divorce from the ex-husband. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners had joined the investigation and presented a Nikahnama supporting their claim of marriage, the allegations required further probe and inquiry, and no evidence existed to show the commission of Zina. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where allegations of Zina and abduction involve a disputed claim of valid marriage through a Nikahnama and the accused have joined the investigation, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when a disputed Nikahnama and a claim of valid marriage after divorce are presented?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding the commission of Zina, coupled with joining the investigation, warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether allegations of abduction and Zina requiring further probe justify confirming pre-arrest bail.
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' The petitioners seek confirmation of their ad interim pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,28 registered at Police Station, Ahmed Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif on 19-3-2002 for an offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2, According to the F.I.R. Mst. Meraj Bibi petitioner was married with one Muhammad Riaz son of Niaz and during the persistence of marriage Khadim Hussain petitioner developed relationship with Mst.
Meraj Bibi. It is further stated in the F.I.R. That subsequently, Khadim Hussain abducted Mst. Meraj Bibi and she was seen in the company of the accused by the P.Ws.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. It has been admitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation. The petitioner Khadim Hussain and Mst.
Meraj Bibi claim to be husband and wife while Shahid accused is younger brother of Khadim Hussain petitioner. The claim of the petitioners is based on Nikahnama according to which Khadim Hussain and Mst. Meraj Bibi married each other after obtaining divorce from ex-husband Muhammad Riaz. The allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. Need further probe and inquiry. Except for the admission of Nikah of the petitioners Khadim Hussain and Mst. Meraj Bibi there is no evidence available on record to show that the petitioners were committing Zina.
4. For what has been discussed above I am inclined to confirm the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing fresh bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Ad interim pre-arrest .