BASHIR AHMAD vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, who is accused of committing sodomy against a minor under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of enmity, the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, and the nature of the offense. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the medical evidence, including the medico-legal report confirming abrasions on the victim, corroborated the allegations. The Court found that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it is punishable by more than ten years of imprisonment. The principle laid down is that where there is prima facie evidence connecting an accused to a heinous offense, and no plausible reason for false implication is established, the accused is not entitled to bail, particularly when the case does not warrant further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to bail in a case of sodomy where medical evidence supports the allegations and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail when other evidence connects the accused to the crime?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Bashir Ahmed (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 116-2005, dated 15-3-2005, registered under Section 377, P.P.C. at Police. Station, Satiana, District Faisalabad on the application of Zohra Khan, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as alleged in 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 Nafar Ali and Zubair P.Ws.
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 afterthought 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 Medico- 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 leveled 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.