IRFAN vs THE STATE
This is a bail application filed by the petitioner, Irfan, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 10 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was accused of house trespass and attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the complainant's daughter. The defense counsel argued that the facts did not constitute an offence under section 18 of the Ordinance, challenged the medical evidence, and highlighted an eighteen-day delay in the registration of the First Information Report. The Court examined the record and rejected the arguments regarding the delay, noting the complainant's socio-economic status as a poor laborer and the lack of fabrication in the timeline. The Court held that the allegations, supported by the record, disclosed a prima facie case of house-breaking with preparation for hurt and criminal assault, punishable under section 455 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence warranted the denial of bail.
- Does an eighteen-day delay in lodging an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful in a bail application?
- Can a court consider the socio-economic status of a complainant when evaluating the credibility of a delayed FIR?
- Does an allegation of house-breaking with preparation for hurt constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 455, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--- Wan Ali, petitioner has sought bail is case F.I.R. No,101 of 2006, dated 3- 3-2006 Police Station, Chanab Nagar, District Jhang under sections 10/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Police Station, Chanab Nagar, Chiniot District Jhang.
2. Mehboob Ahmad, complainant, is labourer by profession. On 13-2-2006 he had gone to work. His wife had also gone to Bazar and his daughter Abida Parveen aged 16/17 years was alone in her house at about 2-30 a.m. The petitioner while armed with Chhurri entered into the house of complainant by scaling over the wall. He caught hold of Abida Parveen, dragged her into the room and attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. He also threatened to kill her in case she raised alarm. On the arrival of Arshad and Masood Ahmad, P.Ws., the petitioner decamped. Mehboob Ahmad, complainant, reported the matter to the police on 3-3-2006 with a delay of about eighteen days.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the facts stated in the F.I.R. Do not constitute an offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, it is otherwise not supported by the medical evidence and that the delay in the registration of case makes the prosecution's case highly doubtful.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The complainant happens to be a poor labourer. Unfortunately, it is most difficult for a man having no means to get a criminal case registered. Had the complainant fabricated a false story he could have easily given a date of his own choice in order to cover up the legal defects pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner.
The facts of the case disclosed that the petitioner committed house breaking after making preparation for causing hurt and making criminal assault. Prima facie a case under section 455, P.P.C. Is also made out against the petitioner, which entails punishment up to 10 years. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.