WAZIR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with an FIR registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction for the purpose of Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the prosecution's allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding the prosecution's narrative implausible and unnatural. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, his implication occurred after a significant delay, and the alleged victim's conduct—leaving behind seven children and failing to raise an alarm during a long-distance journey—cast serious doubt on the veracity of the accusation. The Court concluded that there was no direct evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense, and the case against him warranted further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and bail was granted subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the absence of a petitioner's name in the initial FIR and a delayed supplementary statement constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a court grant bail when the prosecution's narrative of the alleged abduction is found to be inherently implausible and contrary to natural human conduct?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the evidence against them is deemed insufficient to establish a prima facie case at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,603 dated 20-8- 2007, registered under section 365-B, P . P. C . At Police Station Liaqatabad, Lahore.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices had abducted Mst. Husna Bibi from her house and removed her to Sadiqabad for the purposes of Zina.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And no role has been attributed to him. His name was incorporated in the supplementary statement and that too was recorded after the delay of one month and 7 days, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. He further submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case because of the enmity of the complainant with the petitioner. Police has declared all the co- accused of the petitioner innocent.
4. Learned D.P.-G. While opposing the bail application submits that case of abduction against the petitioner stands proved as the abductee fully implicates the petitioner in the commission of the offence in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned D.P.-G .For the State and have also perused the record. As per the story narrated in the F.I.R., the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And no role has been attributed to him. Only allegations against the petitioner were that he was present in the van in which Mst. Husna Bibi was abducted and was removed from Lahore to Sadiqabad. As per the record of the case and the story narrated in the F.I.R. The entire narration of the facts prima facie seems concocted and fabricated and do not appeal to one's mind for the reason that Mst. Husna Bibi, the mother of seven children present in her house was enticed away by Mst. Nasreen to take her to the engagement ceremony to which she readily agreed to go leaving behind all her children. Her leaving the residence abruptly to attend the engagement ceremony seems implausible and unnatural. Moreover, when she was carried from Lahore to Sadiqabad which is a long distance is surprising that she did not make hue and cry and did not resist during the journey as she was being carried in a public transport. This fact also casts serious doubt in one's mind There is no direct evidence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of said offence. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the allegation of abduction levelled against the petitioner seems to be baseless and implausible, as such, the case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition and admit the petitioner 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/Illaqa Magistrate.
Cited by 3 cases
- GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 102
- DIN ULLAH and another vs The STATE 2019 MLD 786
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE 2012 PLD Sindh 272