Haji MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Haji Muhammad Aslam against the State, concerning charges under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a delayed medical examination, and a subsisting money dispute. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the delay in reporting, the delayed medical examination of the victim, and the prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial. The court laid down the principle that unexplained evidentiary delays coupled with statutory incarceration periods can tilt the balance in favor of granting bail under further inquiry.
- Whether an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the FIR and examining the victim constitutes grounds for further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Can prolonged incarceration without trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail in unnatural offence cases?
- Does a monetary dispute between the complainant and the accused create sufficient doubt to warrant bail pending trial?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---On 15-6-2004 at 8-30 p.m. Abdul Rehman complainant laid information at Police Station New Multan, District Multan, that Muhammad Aslam is his friend who used to visit Multan frequently and then somehow he kept his residence with him. On the night between 12/13-6-2004 Muhammad Aslam was asleep with him. At about 3-00 a.m. He heard his son crying. He along with his brother Abdul Sattar went to the drawing room and found the petitioner sodomizing his son. On their hue and cry, Muhammad Aslam ran away. A case under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. Was registered vide F.I.R. No,437. The petitioner' was arrested on 12-7-2005. His bail application has been dismissed by a learned ASJ, Multan, on 18-9-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the sole reliance has been placed by the learned ASJ on the report of the Chemical Examiner which is highly doubtful as admittedly the alleged victim was examined three days after the alleged occurrence. He also states that the case has been got registered mala fide as there was some money dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
3. I have gone through the available records. I find that there is a delay of three days in the lodging of the first report. There is no explanation. There is no denial that the victim was examined three days after the alleged occurrence. Besides, the petitioner stands incarcerated since the last more than five months without a trial. To my mind in the said circumstances, it is certainly a case of further inquiry. Besides, in the circumstances narrated in the F.I.R., it will also have to be seen as to whether a case under section 12 of the said Ordinance is made out. The criminal miscellaneous is accordingly allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, One Lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- QADEER Versus State 2017 YLRN 283
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 1690