ZAHOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Zahoor Hussain Shah, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the complainant's statements and the duration of his incarceration. The petitioner argued that the alleged abductee had provided conflicting accounts, including affidavits exonerating co-accused brothers, suggesting false implication. The complainant opposed the bail, citing the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the advanced stage of the trial. The Court held that the complainant's shifting stance and the unnatural nature of the allegations, particularly regarding the petitioner's brothers, rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on a complainant whose testimony is inconsistent and potentially unreliable, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail even in offences falling under the prohibitory clause.
- Does a complainant's shifting stance regarding the identity of the accused justify the grant of bail?
- Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant has provided conflicting statements?
- Is the duration of incarceration a relevant factor for granting bail in cases involving the prohibitory clause?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J. ---Petitioner Zahoor Hussain Shah seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No,97 of 2007 dated 3-3-2007 under section 365-B/ 376, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Kehror Pacca District Lodhran.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused abducted Mst.
Kaneez Mai for illicit purpose.
3. It is contended that Shabbir Shah and Zaffar Shah P. Ws. Of the occurrence have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had not seen any such occurrence; that the alleged abductee Mst. Kaneez Mai after her recovery in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Implicated four persons to have committed Zina with her including the petitioner and his two real brothers Manzoor and Ghafoor.
Thereafter, she had sworn an affidavit and placed it before the learned ASJ in which she stated that she has satisfied herself that Manzoor and Ghafoor co-accused have not committed Zina with her. It is thus concluded that the alleged abductee is taking different stance and is falsely implicating the real brothers in such a heinous offence. It is further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since 15-3-2007.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional P.G. Is reluctant to oppose this application. However, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application by contending that case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. And challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court and is likely to conclude shortly.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The changing stance taken by the alleged abductee as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner clearly demonstrates that she is changing her stance from one to the other and in particular when Manzoor and Ghafoor co-accused are real brothers of the petitioner. This otherwise appears to be an unnatural story, in particular, when she at one point of time had been wife of the petitioner. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year. Case of the petitioner requires further inquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- UMER DRAZ vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1155