2023 PLP 172 (SCMR)
HIDAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2023 PLP 172 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | HIDAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2023 PLP 172 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2023 PLP 172 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2023 PLP 172 (SCMR) (HIDAYAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia-ur-Rehman Tajik, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 16.05.2019 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) in Criminal M. B.A. No. 218-M of 2019)
S. 497
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 8
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Zina liable to Hadd, kidnapping, abducting or inducting woman to compel for marriage etc.
Accused was alleged to have eloped with the complainant's wife
Although in the FIR the complainant claimed that his wife on her own eloped with the accused but his information to such extent was based upon the information passed to him by someone and the FIR was silent regarding the source through which the complainant came to know about the involvement of the accused in the present case
Subsequently, two prosecution witnesses were examined by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. that too after eight and four days respectively of the registration of the FIR who also claimed that they came to know about the involvement of the accused but did not disclose their source
Alleged wife of the complainant had not been arrested so far
Such circumstances clearly brought the case of the accused within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail.
S. 497
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Mere abscondence by itself is not sufficient to withhold the concession of bail when the accused otherwise becomes entitled for the grant of bail. Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, Additional A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Through this petition, petitioner Hidayat Khan impugns the judgment dated 16.05.2019 passed by Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat through which his post arrest bail was declined in case FIR No. 104 dated 28.03.1986 registered under sections 5/10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station Timergara, District Dir Lower.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned law officer and perusal of the record, we observe that although in the FIR the complainant claimed that his wife on her own eloped with the petitioner but his information to that extent is based upon the information passed to him by someone and the FIR is silent regarding the source through which the complainant came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in this case. Subsequently, two PWs namely Samin Khan and Sadabbar were examined by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. that too after eight and four days respectively of the registration of the FIR who also claimed that they came to know about the involvement of the petitioner but did not disclose the said source. The alleged wife of the complainant has not been arrested so far. These circumstances clearly bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The High Court has mainly refused the bail of the petitioner on the ground of his long abscondence but mere abscondence by itself is not sufficient to withhold the concession of bail when he otherwise became entitled for the grant of bail. Consequently, this petition is converted into an appeal and the same is allowed. Appellant Hidayat Khan is granted post-arrest bail in the instant case subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court concerned. MWA/H-9/SC Bail granted.