MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from F.I.R. No. 304 of 2002, registered under sections 365, 452, 148, 149, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Kacha Khuh, District Khanewal. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, contending false implication due to the complainant's mala fide, the inapplicability of the charged offences, and the fact that the prosecutrix had exonerated him. The core legal question was whether, given the prosecutrix's statement exonerating the accused and the existence of a civil decree for jactitation of marriage in her favor, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court, upon reviewing the record and hearing the prosecutrix, found that she explicitly denied being abducted by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that there were sufficient grounds to believe the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail was confirmed.
- Whether the exoneration of an accused by the prosecutrix provides sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a civil decree for jactitation of marriage in favor of the prosecutrix constitute a valid ground for bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his anticipatory bail in a case F.I.R. No.304 of 2002 dated 12-10-2002 registered under sections 365/452/148/149/380, P.P.C. At Police , Station, Kacha Khuh, District Khanewal on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to mala fide of the complainant; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. It is lastly contended that the case of petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail.
2. On the contrary the learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that specific part of violence has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for extraordinary concession of bail.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. From the perusal of statement of Mst. Gulnaz prosecutrix who is also present in Court, it is obvious that she has exonerated the petitioner from the crime complained. She states that she has not been abducted by the petitioner nor she has contracted marriage with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguthents pointed out that a suit for jactitation of marriage has already been decreed in favour of the prosecutrix. In view of the above discussion there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15-1-2004 by this Court is hereby confirmed.
Cited by 1 case
- 2015 PTD 2011 2015 PTD 2011