MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an offence under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide FIR No. 44/2009. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the FIR, the medical evidence, and the statutory delay in trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR for a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the allegation was prima facie supported by the medico-legal report showing marks of violence, and that the delay in the trial was attributable to the conduct of the petitioner rather than the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that delay in lodging the FIR and statutory incarceration periods do not automatically warrant bail when the accused is specifically nominated for a heinous crime supported by prima facie evidence and is himself responsible for delaying the conclusion of the trial.
- Whether delay in lodging an FIR is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case of Zina-bil-Jabar?
- Does a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle an accused to bail when prima facie evidence exists?
- Whether an accused can claim the benefit of statutory delay in trial caused by his own failure to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
- Section 376(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 44/2009 dated 16.03.2009 offence under Section 376(ii) of PPC, Police Station Chap Kalan, District Khanewal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 07.03.2009 at about 04.00 p.m., he along with his co-accused Azeem committed Zinabil-Jabar with Mst. Fareeda Begum complainant, turn by turn.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 07.03.2009 whereas report of the occurrence was lodged before the police on 15.03.2009 and there is no explanation for such delay; that there are no marks of violence on the person of the victim and that the swa bs which were sent to Chemical Examiner were found not stained with semen so the allegation of commission of rape requires further inquiry. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 20.05.2009 and he behind the bar for last about 11- months without trial.
4. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and,there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he had committed rape with the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are marks of violence on the person of the victim according to the medico legal report that charge against the petitioner was framed on 15.08.2009 by the learned trial Court and examination in chief of five witnesses have been recorded but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not cross examined the aforementioned witnesses so the delay in the trial is being caused due to the act of the petitioner. Lastly, it has been argued that it is a heinous offence which falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.PC and mere delay of few days in lodging of the FIR is no ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner and he prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR and there is specific allegation against him that he committed Zina-bil-Jabar with the complainant along with co-accused Azeem turn by turn, This allegation is prima-facie supported by the medico legal report of the complainant which shows that there were two marks of violence on the body of the complainant. The delay of 7/8 days in lodging of the FIR is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail as bail application can be decided only on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence of the prosecution. Perusal of the judicial record reveals that the charge against the accused was framed on 15.08.2009 by the learned trial Court but the trial is being delayed on account of act of the petitioner as witnesses are not being cross examined by his counsel. This is a heinous offence which falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.PC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any reason for false involvement of the petitioner in his case.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Petition is dismissed.