MUHAMMAD IQBAL--Petitioner vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a post-arrest bail application filed in connection with F.I.R. No. 360 of 2007 registered at Police Station Saddar Okara for offenses under sections 365-B, 376, 457, 395, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, the father of the main accused, is entitled to post-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the absence of direct incriminating allegations by the victim in her statement on oath, and the fact that he has been incarcerated for a considerable period without being required for further police investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that where the victim has not imputed specific allegations of abduction or Zina against the petitioner in her judicial statement and the petitioner's continued incarceration is no longer required for investigative purposes, further detention is unwarranted, thereby establishing grounds for the grant of bail.
- Is an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. a relevant ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of incriminating allegations by the victim in her judicial statement warrants the release of an accused on bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused is no longer required by the police for investigative purposes and has spent a prolonged period in incarceration?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,360 of 2007, dated 10-5-2007 for offences under sections 365-B, 376., 457, 395, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Saddar Okara.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant aged about 14/15 years was allegedly kidnapped by the petitioner and others at gunpoint, as a consequence whereof the aforesaid F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that there is delay of 36 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained; that the alleged victim had, in fact, contracted marriage with the son of the petitioner, namely, Imran; that she filed a petition with the learned Additional Sessions Judge against illegal harassment by her father, that subsequently, she filed a suit for Jactitation of marriage and in her statement on oath she did not level any allegation against the petitioner; that admittedly, she has contracted marriage with another person and that at this stage, the petitioner is not required by the police for any purpose, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. There is delay of 36 hours in loding of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained. Although the allegation against the petitioner is of having kidnapped/ abducted the daughter of the complainant along with others but apart therefrom there is no other allegation against him. The main accused in this case is Imran son of the petitioner who allegedly contracted marriage with the daughter of the complainant. The victim in her statement recorded on oath by the learned Family Court did not level any allegation of abduction or commission of Zina against the petitioner, who is father of the main accused. After the suit for Jactiation of marriage was decreed in her favour she has contracted marriage with another person. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and three months and at this stage, he is not required by the police for any purpose.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.