GHULAM RAHIB alias ZAHID SHAH vs STATE & another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 244 dated 19.08.2009, registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Kabirwala, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed reporting, the nature of the victim's statements, and the circumstances of her recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the abductee admitted to prior telephonic contact, showed no initial hesitation in relations, was not recovered from the petitioner's custody, and that her statement was recorded after a significant delay. The court laid down the principle that where circumstances regarding continuous custody and the veracity of the allegations require further inquiry, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim's statement is recorded after a considerable delay and her continuous custody with the accused is doubtful?
- Does prior telephonic contact and lack of initial hesitation in relations between the victim and the accused make out a case of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,244 dated 19.08.2009, offence under Sections 365-B/376 PPC registered at Police Station, City Kabirwala District Khanewal.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence; that there is inordinate delay of 8 days in lodging of FIR; that the petitioner is not named in the FIR; that the story as narrated in the FIR is not plausioie; that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement; that co-accused of the petitioner, whose name was placed in FIR, has been declared innocent; that there is no evidence against the petitioner; that medical examination was conducted after a delay of 46 days, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
3. On the other hand, learned DPG has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the abductee remained with the petitioner for more than 46 days; that her statement was recorded as soon as she was recovered; that the petitioner allured the abductee by showing rosy picture and then committed heinous offence and having satisfied his lust has abandoned her, as such, he is not entitled' to, the concession of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The abductee in her statement recorded by the police has admitted that she was having telephonic contact with the petitioner for quite some time. It also appears from her statement that she had no hesitation in having relations with the petitioner. However, she was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Her statement was recorded with the delay of 46 days. It is not clear from the record whether she remained in custody of the petitioner for all that period or she was in custody of her parents. According to the record it appears that case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. Hence he is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.