MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 181 dated 26.3.2007 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal, relating to the alleged abduction of Mst. Shehnaz Bibi along with her ornaments. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail considering the police finding of innocence, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of recovery, and absence of medical examination. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim reached her house on her own without being recovered from the petitioner's custody, was not medically examined, and the allegations were found baseless by the police rendering the petitioner innocent, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the key principle that where corroborative medical evidence is missing, the victim is not recovered from the accused, and police find the accused innocent, the case warrants the grant of bail as a matter of further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when found innocent during police investigation and no recovery is effected?
- Does the absence of medical examination and corroborative evidence in an abduction case make the matter one of further inquiry?
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR combined with lack of recovery justifies the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner has moved this application for his release on bail in case FIR No, 181 dated 26.3.2007 registered u/S. 365-B PPC at Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal.
2. Allegedly the petitioner abducted Mst. Shehnaz Bibi alongwith her ornaments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been found innocent and discharge report too has been compiled. It was contended that there was unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in the Jail for the last about 11 months.
4. Learned DPG submitted that the punishment for the offence in question fell under prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The victim and PWs had supported the prosecution story. The ipsi dixit of the police was not binding on the Court. The petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to concession of bail.
5. The victim was not recovered from the custody of respondent and statedly she reached her house of her own after escaping from the clutches of the petitioner and his co-accused. She was not got medically examined, therefore, corroboration of the allegation that she was subjected to zina bil jabs is missing. The facts mentioned in the FIR were found baseless, hence, the petitioner was declared as innocent. All these facts make case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one suretythe like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.