ABDUL RAZZAQ alias BHOLA vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case where the petitioner was charged under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to outrage the modesty of a 15-year-old girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the presence of incriminating material. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through the victim's statement and the FIR. The Court rejected arguments regarding delayed registration of the FIR and alleged political motivation, noting the absence of malice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that affidavits from witnesses denying the occurrence did not override the victim's incriminating statement at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that bail applications must be decided on their own merits, and where there is sufficient incriminating material prima facie connecting the accused to the offense, particularly in cases of sexual assault, bail should be refused.
- Does the existence of witness affidavits denying the occurrence automatically entitle an accused to bail when the victim's statement provides incriminating evidence?
- Can a bail petition be granted where the allegations involve the outraging of a minor's modesty and there is prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime?
- Is a delay in the registration of an FIR by the police, which is not attributable to the complainant, a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Abdul Razzaq alias Bhola son of Muhammad Abbas, the petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,90 of 2007 dated 1-3-2007 registered with Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur for offences under sections 376, 511, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Liaquat Ali son of Rehmat Ali, the complainant, was that he is a resident of Chak No,17; on the day of occurrence at 8- 00 a.m. When his daughter Mst. Zunaira Kausar had gone out of her house to dispose off garbage, one Bhola son of Muhammad Abbas (petitioner) came over there, removed her veil and started kissing and hugging her publicly; on noise raised by her the accused started dragging her towards an Ahata and by using force tore the string of her Shalwar; in the meantime the witnesses got attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 2-3-2007 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, who dismissed his application vide order dated 31-5-2007. Hence this petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record it has been noticed that the petitioner had duly nominated in the F.I.R. Which had been chalked out on the basis of an application made to S.H.O., Police Station Chhanga Manga on the day of occurrence i.e. 25-2-2007.
However, the police registered the formal on 1-3-2007 after three days which delay obviously cannot be attributed to the complainant. There is a very serious allegation against the petitioner of outraging the modesty of a young girl of 15 yeirs of age who is a student of Class VIII. The girl along with her father (complainant) was present during the course of hearing. She tearfully narrated the depraved and atrocious manner in which she had been dealt with by the petitioner. The visibly distraught complainant stated before the Court that the only reason that his daughter has been molested is that the petitioner had taken it for granted that since the former belongs to a menial, low-status caste, he would never pick up the courage to challenge his beastly act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any malice or rancour which might have been harboured by the complainant for involving the petitioner in a serious case in which the latter himself runs the risk of stigmatizing his own daughter. The contention of the learned counsel that the F.I.R. Is politically motivated, is also without any substance, inasmuch as the complainant happens to be a lowly paid primary school teacher having no involvement in politics. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the victim was wearing a Burqa it was not possible for the petitioner to have torn the string of her Shalwar, is also not tenable, in that it has never been the case of the prosecution that the girl was wearing a Burqa. The assertion in the F.I.R.
As also in the statement of the victim under section 161, Cr.P.C. Has been that she was wearing a facial veil. At any rate, it is not for this Court to go in the intricacies of the case at this stage, suffice it to say that ample incriminating material is available against the petitioner to prima facie connect him with th' alleged offence. The affidavits of Habib Ullah and Muhammad Yaseen, eye- witnesses, wherein they have denied to have seen the occurrence, also do not advance the petitioner's case for the grant of bail, inasmuch as the statement of the prosecutrix sufficiently incriminates the petitioner. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Ali Asghar and others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 1171, Dinu alias Din Muhammad v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 1362, Sharif and others v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 871, Muhammad Farooq v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1791 (Lahore), Muhammad Naveed Iqbal v. The State and another 2001 PCr.LJ 1930 (Peshawar), Tahir Abbas alias Babar Ali 2001 M LD 1559 and Atta Muhammad v. State 2007 PCr.LJ 1149 are not applicable to the case of the petitioner as they proceed on distinguishable facts. Each criminal has to proceed on its own merits. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- QADEER Versus State 2017 YLRN 283