AAMAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Aamar Ali, who was charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR alleging abduction and the forced execution of marriage documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of events between the complainant's allegations of abduction and the investigation's findings suggesting a consensual marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that despite the petitioner not being formally declared innocent by the police, the investigation had gathered sufficient material supporting the claim that the complainant, being sui juris, had entered into the Nikah of her own free will. Furthermore, the Court noted a seventeen-day delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of any allegations of Zina. The key principle laid down is that where investigation material substantiates a defense of consensual marriage by a sui juris complainant, and there is no requirement for further custodial investigation, bail should be granted.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation materials suggest the complainant entered into a marriage of her own free will?
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR for abduction constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted in an abduction case where the accused has not been formally declared innocent by the police but evidence supports the defense plea?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Aamar Ali petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,423 dated 29-5-2008 registered under section 365-B, P.P.C.
At Police Station Factory Area, District Sheikhupura on the application of Mst. Nighat Tahira with the allegation that the petitioner along with his co-accused had abducted the complainant and forcibly obtained her signatures and thumb-impression on the Nikahnana, stamp-papers and other documents. The accused were also alleged to have taken I.D. Card, F.A. Degree, Mobile Phone and other important documents of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely on account of mala fide of the complainant; that according to the F.I.R. The complainant had been forcibly abducted by two unknown persons who after abduction brought in the Courts of Ferozewala and then forcibly got her signatures on different papers and prepared forged Nikahnama; that during the investigation it has been found that the petitioner had gone there of her own and contracted Nikah with the petitioner out of her free will; that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient evidence in this behalf and on the basis of the evidence on the record the petitioner has been declared innocent.
3. Learned D.P.-G. On the instructions of Safdar Pervaiz S.-I. And after perusal of the record is not in a position to controvert the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that though the petitioner has not been declared innocent but the plea taken by the petitioner has been proved during investigation through the evidence prOduced by him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Although the petitioner has not been declared innocent, but sufficient material has been collected by the Investigating Officer in support of the plea taken by the petitioner that in fact the complainant being sui juris has contracted Nikah with him out of her free will and consent. Even otherwise there is delay of seventeen days in lodging the F.I.R. The petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Moreover, no allegation of Zina has been levelled against him. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.