Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DOST MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainMehr Muhammad Naeem Arshad,Raja Sultan Khurrum-uz-Zaman,Amjad Mumtaz
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 787
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
DOST MUHAMMAD ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2544/B of 2002, decided on 15th October, 2002.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/16---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Two and a half months' delay occurred in lodging the F.I.R.---Victim lady though in her statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. recorded before Police had leveled allegation against accused of Zina with her, but she was also made an accused in the case being a consenting party of Zina---Except statement of said lady no other evidence of Zina was on record against the accused---Was yet to be seen as to whether on statement of lady alone, accused could be held liable for the alleged offence---Case of accused was open to further inquiry---Accused who was behind the bars for the last about six months and was not a previous convict was granted bail in circumstances.
Mehr Muhammad Naeem Arshad for Petitioner.
Amjad Mumtaz for the State.
Raja Sultan Khurrum-uz-Zaman for the Complainant.
ORDER
Dost Muhammad, the petitioner has sought for after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.65 dated 4-4-2002 under sections 16/10 of the Offence Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that he alongwith his unknown co-accused about two and a half months prior the registration of the case had enticed away Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the sister of the complainant for the purpose of Zina.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in with mala fide intention; that there is two and a half months inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that she has been arrayed as an accused in this case but subsequently recommended to be got discharged from the same; that on the basis of compromise between her and the complainant she has been allowed bail in the instant case; that there is no evidence against him to connect him with the crime and so his case, is covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars for the last about six months and is a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. and that he alongwith his unknown co-accused has enticed away Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, the sister of the complainant and had subjected her to Zina- bil-Jabr.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The fact remains that there is two and half months' delay in lodging the F.I.R.
7. Although the said lady in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the police recorded on 3-7-2002 had leveled the allegations against him of Zina with her but she was also made an accused, in this case being consenting party to Zina.
8. The learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that except her said statement there is no other evidence of Zina against him.
9. In view of this position it is yet to he seen that if he alone on her said statement can he held 'liable for the alleged offence. So, his case is open to further inquiry and is covered under section 497(2). Cr.P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and a previous non-convict.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The application is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond 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.
H.B.T./D-51/L Bail granted.