Bashir Ahmad vs The State
This criminal petition arises from an application filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, who is accused of committing sodomy against a minor victim in a case registered under Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations, the medical evidence, and the nature of the offense. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to enmity and that the delay in the registration of the First Information Report suggested an afterthought. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that medical evidence supported the allegations, including abrasions on the victim's body. The Court held that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it was punishable by more than ten years of imprisonment. Consequently, finding sufficient grounds connecting the petitioner to the crime, the Court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that where prima facie evidence exists for a heinous offense, bail is not warranted.
- Does an offense punishable by more than ten years of imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when medical evidence supports the allegations of a heinous crime?
- Can a bail petition be granted when there are sufficient grounds connecting the accused to the commission of the offense?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Bashir Ahmad (petitioner) seeks po$t-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 116- 2005, dated 15.3.2005, registered under Section 337, PPC at Police Station, Satiana, District Faisalabad on the application of Zohra Khan, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R] is that on 23.12.2004 he had committed sodomy with Sohail Afzal aged about 8/9 years, brother of the complainant and the occurrence was witnessed by Nazar AN and Zubair PWs.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is involved in this case due to enmity and challan has not been submitted in the Court; that report shows that incident had taken place 6/7 days prior to the registration of case, hence it is an after thought story.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner had committed heinous offence, which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. According to the contents of F.I.R, the victim is about 8/9 years of age, but perusal of Medical legal report shows that the minor (victim) is about 7 years and prima facie evidence has been collected due to abrasions on the body of the victim and medical evidence supports the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case in such heinous offence of sodomy committed with his minor brother. According to the Investigating Officer, challan has been prepared and sent-up to the Court, In .The above circumstances, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of further inquiry, as there are sufficient grounds to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, which is punishable more than 10 years imprisonment. Hence, I do not find a fit case for the grant' of bail and resultantly the instant bail petition is dismissed.