MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE and another
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Muhammad Farooq in case F.I.R. No. 181 dated 26-3-2007 registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry entitling him to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner, had reached her house on her own after allegedly escaping, was not medically examined, and the police had declared the petitioner innocent during investigation, the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that where corroborative medical evidence is missing, the victim returned on her own without recovery from the accused, and police found the accused innocent, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained absence of medical examination and lack of recovery from the accused makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the police report declaring an accused innocent binding on the court during bail adjudication?
- Can bail be granted when the victim returns home of her own accord after escaping from the custody of the accused?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---Petitioner has moved this application for his release on bail in case F.I.R.
No,181 dated 26-3-2007 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C. At Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal.
2. Allegedly the petitioner abducted Mst. Shehnaz Bibi along with 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 F.I.R. 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 P.Ws. Had supported the prosecution story. The ipse 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 petitioner 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 Zinabil- Jabar is missing. The facts mentioned in the F.I.R. Were found baseless, hence, the petitioner was declared as innocent. All A 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 surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- NASEEM MANGNEJO Versus State 2023 MLD 1072
- GHULAM HYDER And 3 Others vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2446
- SHAHBAZ AHMED vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 943