Bail of Co-Accused is a ground for Bail
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case is about a bail application in a criminal matter from the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The petitioner, Ali Muhammad, was accused in a case involving offences under the Hudood Ordinance (relating to zina) along with charges of theft, causing hurt, and dishonestly receiving stolen property under the Pakistan Penal Code. He was arrested in June 2006, more than three years after the original FIR was registered in 2003, and his bail had already been rejected by a trial court.
The key facts were that the petitioner was not named in the original police report but was implicated, along with another person named Esa, only through a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the FIR. Esa had already been granted bail by the same court in an earlier case. The petitioner's lawyer argued that since her client's situation was essentially identical to Esa's, he deserved the same treatment. She also pointed out that the woman at the centre of the case had filed a pending court suit denying the existence of her marriage to the complainant.
The High Court agreed that these circumstances made this a case requiring further inquiry rather than one warranting continued detention. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the judge granted bail, requiring bail bonds and a surety of Rs. 50,000. The case illustrates the legal principle that when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail, that fact strongly supports granting bail to another accused in comparable circumstances.
یہ مقدمہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ، ملتان بینچ میں دائر ایک ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے جو ایک فوجداری معاملے میں پیش کی گئی۔ درخواست گزار، علی محمد، پر حدود آرڈیننس کے تحت زنا سے متعلق جرائم کے علاوہ پاکستان پینل کوڈ کے تحت چوری، ضرب پہنچانے اور مالِ مسروقہ کو بددیانتی سے وصول کرنے کے الزامات بھی عائد تھے۔ اسے جون 2006 میں گرفتار کیا گیا، یعنی اصل ایف آئی آر درج ہونے کے تقریباً تین سال بعد جو 2003 میں درج کی گئی تھی، اور اس سے قبل ٹرائل کورٹ اس کی ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر چکی تھی۔
مقدمے کے اہم حقائق یہ تھے کہ درخواست گزار کا نام اصل پولیس رپورٹ میں شامل نہیں تھا بلکہ اسے، عیسیٰ نامی ایک اور شخص کے ساتھ، صرف ایک ضمنی بیان کی بنیاد پر ملوث کیا گیا تھا جو ایف آئی آر کے سات ماہ بعد ریکارڈ کیا گیا۔ عیسیٰ کو اسی عدالت کی جانب سے ایک پہلے مقدمے میں پہلے ہی ضمانت مل چکی تھی۔ درخواست
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2009 Cr.C. ( Lahore ) 1192 [ Multan Bench Multan ] Present: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, J. ALI MUHAMMAD--Petitioner versus STATE--Respondent Crl. Misc. 2604-B of 2006, decided on 21.9.2006. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497(2)--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979)--Ss. 13 & 14--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380, 381-A, 337-J & 411--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Administered some intoxicant to members of the family--Nominated through supplementary statement after seven months--Held: Bail was being prayed for on the same grounds on which it was granted to co-accused--Petitioner has shown the High Court a copy of plaint in jactitation suit and stated at bar that she had filed the suit and it was pending--Case was of further inquiry--Bail was allowed. [P. 1194] A PLJ 1984 SC 192 rel. Mrs. Saeeda Asif, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Faheem Mumtaz, Advocate for State. Malik Muhammad Saleem, Advocate for Complainant. Date of hearing: 21.9.2006. Order The petitioner was arrested on 30.6.2006 in case FIR No. 134 dated 9.8.2003 under Sections 13/14 of (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with Sections 380/381-A/337-J/411 PPC at P.S. Kot Mubarak, District Dera Ghazi Khan. His bail application has been rejected by a learned ASJ, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 31.7.2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that her client is not nominated in the FIR. He was named along with one Esa in a supplementary statement recorded several months after the registration of the said FIR whereas the said Esa has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.7.2004 in Cr. Misc. No. 1938-B/04. According to her, he was abroad to work for gain and surrendered himself immediately after his return. She further contends that Mst. Zainab has filed a suit for jactitation against the complainant which is pending. Learned counsel for the complainant assisting the learned counsel for the State contends that the role attributed to the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Esa as he had made the travelling arrangements for Mst. Zainab to travel abroad. According to his Mst. Zainab as well as Mahmood were placed behind the bars by the Saudi Government and then deported.
3. I have gone through the available records. According to the contents of the FIR, the complainant married Zainab 3/4 months ago whereas he was already married with Ruqia who bore him five children. His brother-in-law Ghulam Hassan was not happy and had gone to Saudi Arabia. He returned two months ago. On 8.8.2003 Mst. Zainab administered some intoxicant to the members of the family. He got up at 5.00 a.m. and found Mst. Zainab absent. On his hue and cry, the persons mentioned in the FIR arrived and he found the cash and several articles mentioned in the FIR missing. He expressed suspicion on Farid, Mir Khan, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ibrahim and Bilal.
4. He named the petitioner and Esa in a supplementary statement recorded seven months after the said FIR. Esa had been granted bail by the Court as stated above.
5. Now to my mind apart from the fact that the bail is being prayed for on the same grounds on which it was granted to Esa, the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me a copy of the plaint in the jactitation suit and stated at the bar that she has filed the family suit on behalf of Mst. Zainab and it is pending. This being so, on the analogy of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and Others (PLJ 1984 SC 192), this is certainly a case of further inquiry. The Cr. Misc. is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. (R.A.) Bail allowed.