MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 348 dated 6-9-2006 registered under Section 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh, on the charge of committing sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry to justify the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the medical evidence did not corroborate the ocular account, the Chemical Examiner's report was yet to be obtained, police officials including the Investigating Officer, Station House Officer, and D.S.P. had declared the petitioner innocent, and the petitioner had been incarcerated for three months. The court laid down the principle that where medical evidence lacks corroboration, police investigation reports innocence, and chemical reports are awaited, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under the criminal procedure, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does the lack of corroboration between medical evidence and the ocular account make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the declaration of innocence by police officers is a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the Chemical Examiner's report has not yet been obtained and the accused has spent months behind bars?
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I,R. No.348 dated 6- 9-2006 registered, under section 337, P.P.C. At Police Station, Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The allegation against petitioner as contained in the F.I.R. That he committed sodomy with Ishfaq son of the complainant.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the medical report does not support the occurrence as it is stated in the same that there was no mark of violence on the external part of buttocks; that report of the Chemial Examiner has still not been obtained; that the Investigating Officer visited the spot and observed that there were no signs of ruffle; that Investigating Officer/Station House Officer as well as the D.S.P. Declared the petitioner as innocent; that the petitioner is below the age of 18 years and in this regard a school leaving certificate is produced and as such he is entitled to the relief of bail And in this behalf, reliance is placed upon Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1991 and that petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months.
4. On the other hand, bail has been Opposed by the learned State counsel. However, it conceded that Chemical Examiner's Report has still not been obtained and that one of the. P. Ws. Sultan Mehmood had initially implicated the petitioner in his statement recorded on 14-10-2006 but subsequently on 22-11-2006 he withdrew his statement.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular account. Chemical Examiner's report has also not been obtained. The Investigating Officer/ Station House Officer/D.S.P. Declared the petitioner innocent. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months. Therefore, the case of the petitioner becomes of further inquiry.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.