NAVEED MASIH vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No. 1326 dated 19-12-2006 registered under sections 363 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of divergent statements made by the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an unexplained delay in medical examination, and questions regarding the victim's veracity. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the victim's divergent statements and the lack of immediate medical examination rendered her sole statement untrustworthy without strong corroboration. The court established the principle that where a victim makes contradictory statements regarding abduction and sexual assault and appears to have delayed medical examination without explanation, further inquiry into her guilt arises, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Does a victim's divergent statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create a case for further inquiry justifying post-arrest bail?
- Can the sole statement of a victim be relied upon without strong corroboration when her medical examination is delayed and doubtful?
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and conducting a medical examination weighs in favor of granting bail to an accused?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.-The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1326, dated 19-12-2006 registered under sections 363/376, P.P.C. Amended 376, P.P.C. With Police Station, Factory Area Lahore on the ground that he has falsely been involved in the instant case; that there is 10 days' inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that, investigation qua the petitioner is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
2. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G. Has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The victim, Rubi deeply disturbed and bewildered was roaming at the platform of Railway Station, Lahore on 1-2-2007. A lady Police Constable of Railway Police took her to Railway Help Center and her custody was given to Sub Inspector Faqir Muhammad. She Was produced before a Magistrate for recording her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. She was lodged in Dar-ul-Aman as per her desire under the order of Magistrate 1st Class. She stated to have left her house of her own accord negating story of abduction. Later on she made statement on 17-2-2007 under section 164, Cr.P.C. Alleging abduction and commission of offence of Zina. Divergent statement of the victim reacts on her veracity.
6. Police Officer issued docket on 17-12-2006 for medical examination of victim. However, she was produced on 10-1-2007. Local examination revealed her hymen torn with old healed tears and vagina admitting two fingers easily. No explanation is available as to why she was not subjected to medical examination on 1-2-2007. Victim appears to be woman of easy virtue indulged in sexual activities. Her sole statement cannot be relied upon in absence of strong corroboration.
7. Police Officer is of the view that stepfather of victim is real cause of trouble. An application - for launching criminal action against her stepfather was lodged by her, which was sent to Police Station Kot Lakhpat as the occurrence fell within its territorial limits. She has again left her house and is not traceable.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- GHULAM FAREED vs THE STATE and another 2010 YLR 1188
- FAHAD AZIZ vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1184
- FAHAD AZIZ vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2846