ARSHAD ALI vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Arshad Ali, in relation to FIR No. 252 registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadr, District Faisalabad. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail on the grounds of a three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the alleged victim's age, and the absence of semen or violence marks in the medico-legal report, arguing these factors demonstrated mala fide intent. The State opposed the application, noting the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR for committing zina-bil-jabar, that the prosecution case was supported by ocular and medical evidence, and that the petitioner had previously abused the concession of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the petitioner failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or police, the Court dismissed the petition and recalled the ad-interim bail, affirming that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage.
- Does an offence under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR for a serious offence and fails to establish mala fide intent by the complainant?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Arshad Ali petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case FIR No, 252 ted 18.6.2008 registered under Section 376 PPC at Police Station slouching District Faisalabad on the ground that there is delay of 3 days lodging of FIR which remained unexplained; that Mst. Nourine Bibi is it of 13 years, her age is 16 years. As per medico legal report of Mst. urine Bibi, no marks of violence were detected on her person; that abs were not found to be stained with semen. From these facts malafide of the complainant and falsehood of prosecution case is q clear.
2. Learned DPG for the State assisted by the learned counsel the complainant submit that the petitioner is named in the FIR an specific role of committing zina-bil-jabar is assigned to him; that witnesses and the alleged abductee have supported the prosecution can that the ocular account of this case is further supported by the medic evidence and that the assertion having been agitated by the learn counsel for the petitioner require deeper appreciation of evidence which is neither permissible nor desirable at the stage of grant of pre-are bail. They also submit that the pre-arrest bail is an extra ordering concession which is meant for innocent persons and the petitioner he failed to prove his innocence on the record. They further contend to the conduct of the petitioner is highly objectionable. He had been getting concession of pre-arrest bail and abusing the same.. This is 4th be application having been submitted by the petitioner before different Courts.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court has noticed that the petitioner is named in the FIR. Specific part of committing rape with Mst. Nourine Bibi is assigned to him. From the contents of the FIR, the commission of offence under Section 376, PPC is made out which falls within the prohibitory clause a Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not been able to establish tothe ulterior motives of the police or the complainant party.
4. Resultantly, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. The petition is thus, dismissed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted the petitioner is recalled.
Cited by 3 cases
- ALI AKSAR and another vs STATE PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 543
- ALI AKSAR and another vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1404
- ALI AKSAR and another vs STATE PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 301