MUKHTIAR alias MUKHO and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by four applicants accused of offenses involving the humiliation of a woman, specifically allegations that they unclothed her and compromised her modesty in public. The core legal question was whether, given the factual inconsistencies and the nature of the prosecution's story, the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail pending trial. The Court observed significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, noting the implausibility of the complainant traveling alone to a remote area, the questionable timing of the arrival of the complainant's husband and brother, and the lack of independent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted an affidavit from the complainant's uncle asserting the incident was false. Holding that the prosecution's version required further investigation and that the case against the applicants was one of further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's narrative contains significant factual improbabilities and inconsistencies, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the existence of significant factual inconsistencies in the FIR entitle an accused to the concession of bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Can an affidavit from a relative of the complainant denying the incident be considered during bail proceedings?
- Is the implausibility of the prosecution's timeline and the complainant's presence at the scene a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---Learned counsel for the applicants submits that because of some enmity; between the parties the case has been lodged. He has pointed out that according to the version disclosed in the F.I.R. The complaint is false as four persons allegedly unclothed a lady and her chasisty and modesty was allegedly lowered as she was shown naked to the public. He submits that there is no other person who has been cited as a witness while only two persons, that is husband and his brother reached there and on seeing them the accused persons ran away towards katcha. He submits that distance between the house of the complainant and place of incident is about a mile away and it was not possible for both the male members of the complainant side to reach the site and that, had it been the situation the accused persons, who were allegedly four and were near the katcha area, would have killed the complainant and her two male companions as it could have been easy for them. He submits that the story is concocted.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out an affidavit of Rasool Bux which is real uncle of the complainant, who is present in Court and has stated that said .Rasool Bux has dubbed entire incident as false.
3. ' Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application by stating that the names of the accused persons have been mentioned and the factual position shows that she was subjected to humiliation as her modesty and chasisty was opened to general public, therefore; the accused are liable to remain in jail.
4. ' Learned State counsel has halfheartedly opposed the bail application.
5. I have examined a factual position and have noted that according to the version in the F.I.R.
6. Complainant has travelled a mile from her house to collect the fodder for the animal near the katcha area where the alleged incident happens, now it is to be seen as to why a lady in her lone capacity travelled to the area of katcha while there were no public and there alleged incident took place. It is also to be gathered as to how the husband and brother reached the place of incident by crossing one mile distance in a shortest time when the accused were busy in committing crime and ran away after seeing them. It is also a matter to be investigated how the information in respect to the incident reached to the husband of the lady and his brother and whether they were present in the house at 9-00 a.m. Which is a time for a work for men folk. All these factual positions need further investigation. Hence the applicants A are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.