SAFDAR ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner Safdar Ali sought post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 234 dated 26-9-2000 registered under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of marks of violence on the medical examination report, and the period already spent behind bars. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of about 38 hours in lodging the F.I.R. and the absence of any marks of violence on the victim's body cast doubt on the prosecution's story, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of every doubt, even at the bail stage, must be extended to the accused, and accordingly allowed the petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and absence of marks of violence on the victim's body make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused charged under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be granted post-arrest bail when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution story?
- Is the benefit of doubt to be extended to an accused person even at the bail stage?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Safdar Ali petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,234, dated 26-9-2000, registered under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), and section 377, P.P.C., with Police Station Saddar Burewala, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution as per F.I.R. Is that on 24-9-2000 at about 6-00 p.m. The complainant alongwith Safdar Ali after watching the football match was going back to his house.
They when reached Katcha road, Safdar Ali petitioner brought out Churri from the fold of his Shalwar and threatened him to kill if he raised noise and he took him to the sugarcane field and there committed sodomy upon him.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in: that there is two days delay in lodging the F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation; that according to Medico Legal Report of the victim, his medical examination was conducted on 25-9-2000 at 11-00 a.m. While according to F.I.R. It was on 26-9-2000 and the same makes the matter doubtful; that the doctor in his MLC has mentioned that there was no mark of violence on his body and the same also suggests that he was not subjected to sodomy; and that he is behind the the last one year and two months and is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he kidnapped the victim boy and took him to the sugercane field and there he committed sodomy upon him.
5. I have carefully considered the submission advanced by both sides with the help of available record.
6. There is about 38 hours' delay in lodging the F.I.R. On the victim medical examination, no mark of violence was found on his body. The same casts doubt on the victim's story. The benefit of every doubt even at bail stage is to be given to the accused. In these circumstances, his case requires further inquiry into his guilt and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars for about one year and two months and stated to be previous non-convict.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MOOR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1442