SAJJAD AHMAD vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Sajjad Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 31 registered under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mitro, District Vehari. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the statement of the alleged abductee recorded before a Magistrate affirming a free-will marriage, and a family court judgment in favor of the petitioner. The court held that the case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where material on record such as a prior statement of the alleged victim and supporting civil/family court decrees render the prosecution case doubtful, the matter falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the alleged victim has contracted a marriage with the accused?
- Does a statement of the alleged abductee recorded before a Magistrate favoring the accused bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a family court judgment and decree regarding restitution of conjugal rights be considered in deciding a bail petition in a criminal case involving abduction and rape allegations?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner Sajjad Ahmad through the instant petition has prayed for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. -No,31 registered under sections 365-B/376, P.P.C. With Police Station Mitro, District Vehari on 29-1- 2009.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 24-10-2008 at about 12-00 noon, he had abducted Mst. Naseem Mai, the daughter of the complainant and thereafter, took her to different places and had subjected her to zina-bil-jabr and also took her photographs.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that there is delay of about three months in lodging the F.I.R. It is the plea from his side that the alleged abductee of her own accord has contracted valid marriage with him and had been living with him and the story of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R. Is absolutely false and that as she is his wife and so, there is no question of any zina-bil-jabr by him with her. In support of such plea, a statement on oath of the alleged abductee before a Magistrate has been relied upon. The same is shown to have .Been recorded on 5-11-2008. This, thus, was prior to the registration of the case against him. She in the same has deposed that nobody has abducted her and she on 30-10-2008, has contracted marriage with him of her free will and is living with him and his father intends to sell her to someone and he (father) and others had been forcing her to have divorce from him. There is also appended to the petition, an ex parte judgment and decree dated 13-3-2009, recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vehari in his suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her. In the same, the learned Judge, Family Court has believed his version to be true.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the certified copy of suit for jactitation of marriage brought by her against him and certain other copies of the record of that suit besides the judgment and decree dated C 17-9-2009, recorded by the learned Judge family Court, Mailsi.
She had brought the said suit against him. Her suit by way of that judgment and decree has been dismissed.
5. In view of all such facts available on the record, I find that his case is covered D under subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard, I rely upon the case of "Mukhtiyar Ahmad v. The State (2003 PCr.LJ 1057. Lah.), "Sajjad Ahmad alias Kaura v. The State"
(2003 M LD 1514 Lah.) and "Mushtaq Ahmad aliss Shaki and other v. The State" (2000 MLD 1986 Lah.)
6. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about five months and a E previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
7. In these circumstances of the case, I accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) F with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.