MUHAMMAD MATTEEN vs STATE
The petitioner filed a post-arrest bail application in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of conflicting Nikahnamas, which raised doubts regarding the validity of the marriage and the prosecution's case. The Court held that the existence of two competing Nikahnamas necessitated a deeper examination of the facts, thereby bringing the case within the ambit of 'further inquiry' into the guilt of the accused as contemplated under the law. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, noting his status as a previous non-convict and the duration of his incarceration. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on disputed documents like conflicting Nikahnamas, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry, which constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the existence of conflicting Nikahnamas in a Zina case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of an observation made by the court in a co-accused's bail petition regarding the validity of marriage documents?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Matteen through the instant petition has soughaor post-arrest bail in Case FIR No, 54 dated 23.3.2003 u/S. 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No, VII of 1979 and Section 380 PPC registered with Police Station City Rajanpur.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 4.6.2003 in the bail petition (Crl.
Misc. No, 1087-B-2003), titled Rehana Bibi alias Shama vs. The State. The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. Bail has been sought on the ground that his co-accused Rehana alias Shama is his legally wedded wife and the Nikahnama shown by the complainant showing her nikah with one Muhammad Arshad is fabricated one; that this Court in the said criminal petition has observed that it is a case of two nikahnamas and the question that which of these is correct seriously needs consideration and the benefit of this observation is equally available to him and so the case against him certainly requires further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars since 27.3.2003 and a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. In the case of co-accused Rehana alias Shama, this Court has observed that it is a case of two nikahnamas and the question hat which of these is correct seriously needs consideration. The benefit of such observation is equally available to him and from the angle his case is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. calling for further L quirky into his guilt.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars since 27.3.2003 and previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, I therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail c bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.