MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Munawar, who was charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of Mst. Nazia Bibi and forcing her into marriage. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the statement of the alleged abductee recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the alleged abductee had explicitly stated to the Investigating Officer that she was not abducted and had married the petitioner's brother of her own free will. Furthermore, the Court noted that the abductee was pregnant, which served as evidence of her being sui juris, as pregnancy presupposes the onset of menstruation and adulthood. Consequently, the Court held that the allegations in the FIR were refuted by the abductee's own statement, rendering the case one of further inquiry. The Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that where the alleged victim denies abduction and provides evidence of maturity, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the pregnancy of an alleged abductee serve as proof of her being sui juris in an abduction case?
- Is a case for abduction considered one of further inquiry when the alleged victim denies the abduction in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail if the alleged victim's statement contradicts the FIR allegations?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR, No, 300/2008 registered under Section 365-B PPC at Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of FIR are that he alongwith his accomplices had abducted Mst. Nazia Bibi, daughter of the complainant and had forcibly contracted her marriage with his brother.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a false case registered against the petitioner as a matter of fact no such occurrence has ever taken place. The alleged abductee Mst. Nazia had contracted marriage with the brother of the petitioner with her free will and consent and so did she state before the JO in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that nobody had abducted her rather she has contracted marriage with the brother of the petitioner with her free will and consent. He further submits that Mst. Nazia is sui juris and is pregnant for four months, therefore, in view of her statement no offence has been committed by the petitioner and is therefore liable to be released on bail.
4. Learned DPG does not seriously oppose bail application of the petitioner and submits that Mst.
Nazia, the alleged, abductee, has stated before the I0 in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that nobody was abducted her rather she has contracted marriage with the brother of the petitioner with her free will and consent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the FIR with specific role of abduction but I am afraid the alleged abductee Mst. Nazia had stated before the I0 in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that nobody had abducted her rather she has contracted marriage with the brother of the petitioner with her free will and consent. As far as question of her being sui juris is concerned, it has been established from the record as produced by the IO that Mst. Nazia is pregnant for about four months out of marriage took place between the brother of the petitioner and the alleged abductee, therefore, question of her being sui juris does not arise, as she is already pregnant. It is worth mentioning here that a woman cannot get pregnant until and unless menstruation start occurring and it is sufficient to have menstruation to prove the factum of being adult, as pregnancy cannot take place until and unless menstruation starts. Since Mst. Nazia got pregnant, therefore, there is no question of her being minor. In view of her statement made before the I.O. wherein she fully refutes the allegations levelled in the FIR against the petitioner, therefore, provisions under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried do not attract in this case.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post arrest 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 learned trial Court/Raga Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.