FAHAD AZIZ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Fahad Aziz seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 551 dated 8-5-2007, registered under sections 365-B, 371-A, and 371-B of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, on allegations of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of delayed lodging of the F.I.R., non-nomination of the petitioner therein, variance in the victim's statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and lack of independent corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting the divergent statements of the victim, delayed F.I.R., and absence of strong corroborative evidence. The court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that contradictory statements by a victim unbacked by independent corroboration warrant further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the F.I.R. is delayed by 28 days without explanation and the accused is not nominated therein?
- Does variance between statements recorded under section 161 and section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitle an accused to further inquiry?
- Is the sole statement of a victim sufficient to deny bail in the absence of independent corroboration when her veracity is affected by divergent accounts?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.----Fahad Aziz petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,551 dated, 8-5-2007, registered under sections 365-B/ 371-A/371-B, P.P.C. At Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices abducted Mst.
Nargis and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant F.I.R. Was got lodged after a delay of 28 days in which the petitioner was not nominated and no role was ascribed to the petitioner. He further submits that the statements of Mst. Nargis Bibi, the alleged abductee before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. And before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. Are at variance. He also submits that the medical of the victim was conducted after six months of the occurrence and there is no direct evidence against the petitioner except the statement of the alleged abductee, as such, the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt. He relied upon the case of Naveed Masih v. The State 2008 YLR 1062 and Sajjad alias Sakkoo v. The State 2007 YLR 9.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned APG for the State while opposing the bail application submit that the petitioner committed Zinabil-Jabr with the alleged abductee as per her statement and there was no reason for 'the alleged abductee to falsely implicate the petitioner in the case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. In order to know the factual position, Mst. Nargis Bibi, the victim was summoned by this Court who appeared today and stated that the petitioner committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her but the fact remains that her statement does not find independent corroboration from the statement of any other witness. She narrated different story before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. And it was altogether different version before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. And here in this Court as well, as such, no reliance could be placed on her statement, as such, divergent statements of victim reacted on her veracity. The medical report also reveals that her hymen was torn with old healed tears and vagina admitting two fingers easily, as such, the victim appears to be woman of easy virtue, indulged in sexual activities and her sole statement, cannot be relied upon in absence of strong corroboration.
The F.I.R. Was delayed by 28 days without any explanation for such delay coupled with the fact that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. Keeping in view all the above mentioned facts, I find that the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
6. For what has been discussed above, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Cited by 1 case
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 457