1997 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497(2)

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10

Bail, grant of

Accused was not named in the F.I.R. by the complainant

Prosecution witnesses having implicated the accused subsequent during investigation were not named in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses of the occurrence

No identification parade had been held in respect of accused

Case against accused, thus, required further inquiry as envisaged by S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Accused who was in judicial custody for nine months was neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal

Declaration of accused as a proclaimed offender pursuant to the registration of the case in which he was not named as an accused could not bar his release on bail if he was otherwise found to be entitled to bail

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam Tahir-ul-Qadri for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Baig for the State. The present petition contends for post-arrest bail of the petitioner in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 120 of 1996, dated 1-5-1996 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions stated herein. It was confirmed on behalf of the State that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. by the complainant, but that he was alleged to have been seen by two prosecution witnesses subsequently associated with the investigation of the case. It was further clarified that the said two P. Ws. are not named as eye-witnesses of the occurrence in the F.I.R. itself. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that no identification parade has been held in respect of the petitioner, who is otherwise not named in the F.I.R., as stated above.

3. Therefore, it is hereby held that for the aforestated reasons the case' for bail of the petitioner is made out under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was further confirmed on behalf of the State that the petitioner is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal and that he has been in the judicial custody for almost nine months. Therefore, it is hereby observed that merely because the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender pursuant to the registration of case in which he was not named as an accused, shall not be bar to the bail being allowed to him, if a case for the same is otherwise made out.

4. For the aforestated reasons, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C the learned trial Court.: N.H.Q./M-357/L Bail allowed.