JAHANGIR and another vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused, Jahangir and Zulfiqar, who were charged under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered in 2007 for alleged sexual violence against a minor. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, particularly in light of the investigation report. The Court observed that the police investigation report, prepared under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, had declared the petitioners innocent and placed their names in Column No. 2. While acknowledging that the police's opinion is not binding on the Court, the judge held that it remains a relevant circumstance for bail consideration. Finding that the petitioners' liability remained uncertain and noting their prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the accused were admitted to bail.
- Is the opinion of the police declaring an accused innocent in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 binding upon the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does the inclusion of an accused's name in Column No. 2 of the police report constitute a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the prolonged detention of an accused without the commencement of trial justify the grant of bail?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--- Petitioner Jahangir and Zulfiqar through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,361 registered under section 376, P.P.C. With Police Station Tulamba, District Khanewal on 24-10-2007.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 28-9-2007, they along with others having fire-arms have taken away Mst. Kalsoom Mai, 16/17 years old, the daughter of the complainant to a cotton field across the canal and there they one after the other subjected her to sexual violence.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that according to the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Prepared by the police and produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me they during the police investigation have been found to be innocent and their names placed in Column No,2 of the same. The ipse dixit of the police though is not binding upon Court, yet it is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration while determining such-like question.
4. In view of this position on the record, it is yet to be seen that if they ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence. The mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, is amply attracted to their case.
5. They are stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year. According to the S.-I. Present in the Court, their trial as yet has not commenced.
6. In these circumstances of the case, I find that the case for their enlargement on bail has been made out.
7. Resultantly, the petition is accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount
Cited by 1 case
- CHRISTOPHER OFROA alias MARK WILLIAM vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1851