IRFAN and another vs THE STATE
The petitioner filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 114, dated 16-10-2004, initially registered under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Sections 377, 511, and 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the deletion of the Hudood Ordinance charge and the circumstances surrounding the cross-F.I.R. The Court observed that the offence under the Hudood Ordinance had been deleted, leaving only charges under the Pakistan Penal Code, which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's younger age relative to the complainant and the existence of a prior cross-F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner against the complainant, suggesting the possibility of a false case. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and admitted him to bail, establishing the principle that cross-reporting and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause are valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Does an offence under Sections 377, 511, and 292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the existence of a prior cross-F.I.R. lodged by the accused against the complainant constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 292, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,114, dated 16-10-2004 under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 377/511/292, P.P C.
Registered at Police Station Mankera District Bhakkar.
2. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to oommit sodomy with the victim of this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State has been heard.
4. The learned counsel for the State informed that offence under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 has been deleted. The only offence remains against the petitioner under sections 377/511/292, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is of an attempt to commit sodomy. Case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioner is sufficiently younger in age than the victim. The petitioner had lodged an F.I.R.Against the victim/complainant of this case and others in the occurrence vide F.I.R. No,115, dated 18-10-2004. In it he complains of commission of sodomy, committed with him on 10-10-2004.
Possibility of securing registration of false case against the petitioner cannot be excluded at this stage on account of petitioner's lodging report before the police station of the occurrence much prior to time, against the complainant. The- petitioner is of lesser age as compared to that of the complainant of this case. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, open to further inquiry on this count also.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of