SARFRAZ AHMED vs STATE
The petitioner, Sarfraz Ahmad, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 55 dated 3.2.2008 registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qadar Abad District Mandi Baha-ud-Din. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of contradictory statements made by the abductees under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the implausibility of the allegations on record. The Lahore High Court held that due to the material contradictions in the statements of the abductees and the implausible nature of the prosecution's case regarding the commission of the offense, the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that contradictory statements of victims creating reasonable doubt regarding their version of events, coupled with improbable circumstances, make out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a contradiction between statements recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the allegations appear implausible and irrational?
- Can bail be allowed to an accused charged under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the victim denies the occurrence before the court?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, 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
Sarfraz Ahmad, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 55 dated 3.2.2008, registered under Sections 365-B and 376 PPC at Police Station Qadar Abad District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. In view of the contradictory statements of Mst. Tasmia, the abductee before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the Magistrate under. Section 164 Cr.P.C. she was summoned by this Court today. She has categorically stated before this Court that neither any body had abducted her nor any body committed zina-bil-jabr with her. The other abductee, namely, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi appeared of her own and stated that she was subjected to zina-bil-jabr and was abducted by the accused persons mentioned in the FIR.
3. The Investigating Officer, present in the Court, submitted that both the abductees after being released by the accused persons came to the police station and Mst. Tasmia Bibi was not interested in getting her medically examined whereas Mst. Shahnaz Bibi was silent about it.
Moreover, it appears from the record that no such occurrence was ever taken place especially in the light of the statement made by Mst. Tasmia Bibi who categorically denies all the allegations leveled in the FIR. If we go by the statement of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi she involves all the accused persons in the commission of the offence. She states before this Court that she is the step mother of Mst. Tasmia Bibi and was subjected to zina-bil-jabr which seems highly implausible, irrational and unbelievable for the reason that both the abductees remained in the custody of accused persons for about three months but zina-bil-jabr was committed only, with Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, the step mother of Mst. Tasmia Bibi who is much younger in age than Mst. Shahnaz Bibi. Even if all the accused persons have to commit zina for that matter they would have committed the same with Mst. Tasmia Bibi and there was no reason for them to commit zina with Shahnaz Bibi who is an elderly woman. Under the circumstances and in view of contradiction in the statements of the abductees, Investigating Officer is directed to record their statements afresh and complete the investigation in the light of the statements of the abductees and proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law.
4. As far as the question of grant of post arrest bail to Sarfraz Ahmad petitioner is concerned, in view of the contradictory statements of the abductees, the case against the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry into his guilt, as such, he is admitted 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.