MUHAMMAD NAZEER AWAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused Muhammad Nazeer Awan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under FIR relating to offences of house trespass and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the incriminating statements of the prosecutrix and a visual witness recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the victim and the prosecution witness had directly implicated the accused in the crime, there was no apparent reason for false implication at this preliminary stage, and further inquiry would be a matter of trial. The key principle laid down is that where direct ocular and victim testimony prima facie connects the accused to a heinous crime, and the plea of false implication requires deeper appreciation during trial, post-arrest bail is not warranted.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when both the victim and a witness have directly implicated him in a Zina-bil-Jabr case through statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can a plea of false implication without supporting cogent reasons serve as a sufficient ground for granting bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Complainant Mst. Naziran lodged F.I.R. At Bin Qasim Police Station on 26-6-2003 at 1945 hours stating therein that she was working as housemaid to earn livelihood and on the said date she left the house at 8-00 a.m. To work in the Steel Town locality, while her daughter Mst. Shazia aged about 16 years was left alone by her in the house, and when she turned back to her own house at about 3-00 p.m., her daughter Shazia complained to her that at about 10-00-a.m accused/applicant Muhammad Nazir Awan trespassed into the house while she was alone, and forcibly dragged her inside the room of the house and made her to lie down on a "Charpai" and then committed Zina-bil-Jabr against her for two times, and P.W. Munir (the husband of sister of Mst. Shazia) arrived in the said house whereupon the applicant left Mst. Shazia; and Munir disputed the entering into the house by the accused/ applicant, whereupon they entered into (Hathapai) with each other, whereafter the applicant succeeded to make his escape good. Complainant informed her husband Muhammad Azim about the facts of the incident when he arrived in the house during the night time, and on the following morning, complainant consulted with the people of "Biradri" and then went to the said police station and lodged the F.I.R. Of the case, ' Learned trial Court rejected the bail application of the accused/applicant.
2. 'Heard Mr. Abdul Naeem Memon Advocate for accused/applicant and Mr. Mumtaz Ali Khan Deshmukh Advocate for the State; section 164, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws. Mst. Shazia and Munir were got recorded by the police from a Magistrate, wherein Mst. Shazia has clearly implicated the accused/applicant for first having criminally trespassed into their house and then forcibly dragging her inside the room of the house and then committed Zina-bilJabr against her; so also P.W. Munir has implicated the accused/applicant by stating that when he reached the house of the complainant and knocked the main door from outside, he received no response and therefore, entered into the house by scaling the outer wall thereof, and found the accused/applicant on the bed inside the room of the house while Mst. Shazia P.W. Was near the accused/applicant; he further stated therein that during the evening time, when complainant Mst. Naziran reached the said house, Mst. Shazia informed her that accused/applicant committed Zina-bil-Jabr.
3. ' At this stage of the case, no reason appears to record a finding that Mst. Shazia would be falsely implicating the accused/applicant in this case, the plea that the said witnesses have implicated the accused/applicant at the instigation of somebody else is subject to proof thereof, and there is no cogent reason for directing to admit the applicant to bail; hence this bail application was dismissed by a short order dated 16-2-2004 and above are the reasons for the same.