MUHAMMAD AZAM vs STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of sodomy against a twelve-year-old victim. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained twenty-day delay, that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, and that he was falsely implicated due to local rivalry regarding his position as the mosque's Imam. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the heinous nature of the offense and the victim's age. Upon review, the Court found that the delay in lodging the FIR was attributable to police negligence rather than the complainant, as efforts had been made to register the case earlier. Furthermore, the Court noted that the lack of medical findings was consistent with the twenty-day delay in examination. Given the investigating officer's report indicating the petitioner's admission to an attempt of the offense, the Court held that sufficient material existed to connect the petitioner to the crime. Consequently, the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed.
- Does a twenty-day delay in lodging an FIR, caused by police negligence, invalidate the prosecution's case in a bail application?
- Is the absence of medical evidence sufficient grounds to grant pre-arrest bail when the medical examination occurred twenty days after the alleged incident?
- Does an admission of an attempt to commit an offense provide sufficient material to connect an accused to the crime for the purpose of denying pre-arrest bail?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Azam petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 238 registered at Police Station Paprianwala on 01.07.2008 for an offence under Section 377, PPC.
2. Through the above said FIR the complainant has leveled an allegation against the accused that he had committed sodomy with his son namely Umair Hasan who is twelve years of age. The occurrence was statedly taken place in the room situated on upper portion of the mosque and the petitioner was performing his duties as Imam of said mosque. When on hue and cry of the victim the people of vicinity gathered at the place of occurrence the petitioner opened the door and found the victim in a cupboard in an unconscious condition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant and with connivance of the opponent group who want to knock out the petitioner from the mosque and the FIR was lodged with a delay of twenty days which has not been plausibly explained. Medical evidence also does not support the prosecution's case. He further submits that , Khurshid Begum and other witnesses have sworn their affidavits before the investigating officer at initial stage to the effect that the petitioner has been involved in this case on account of misunderstanding. Keeping in view all these facts no case against the petitioner is made out and he is entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is involved in this case and the complainant has no motive to falsely involve him in a case of this nature. He has committed heinous offence with a minor child who is aged about 12/13 years and is present in Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that so far as the delay in lodging of FIR is concern the complainant had made hectic efforts to register case but due to negligence of the local police she could not succeed. Thereafter she Med an application before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police for this purpose and on his intervention case has been registered after twenty days, therefore, the delay occurred in lodging the FIR is not attributable to the complainant. As regards the medical evidence, it is admitted at all hands that the victim is examined after twenty days of the alleged occurrence and naturally after passage of such a delay no injury is found on the person of victim. According to the investigating officer the petitioner has also admitted his guilt to the extent of attempt and not for actual offence with the minor. At this stage the prosecution is possessing sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and I do not find any merit to enlarge the petitioner for pre-arrest bail. Reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence and this petition is dismissed.