NAWAZ alias NAKRA vs STATE & another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in the medico-legal report regarding marks of violence and the victim's virginity, the awaited Chemical Examiner's report, and the fact that the challan had been submitted and the accused was no longer required for investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that continued detention would amount to punishment without trial. The court laid down the principle that contradictions in the medico-legal report vis-a-vis the prosecution allegations, coupled with the conclusion of investigation and absence of need for further custody, can justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a contradiction between the medico-legal report and the FIR regarding marks of violence and the victim's condition make a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for further police investigation?
- Whether the awaited report of the Chemical Examiner combined with discrepancies in the medical evidence justifies releasing an accused on bail in a rape case?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Nawaz alias Nakra son of Khan Muhammad, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition, seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 132/2010, dated 28.3.2010, registered with Police Station Saddar, Khanewal, for an offence under Section 376 P.P.C., at the instance of Mumtaz son of Dost Muhammad- complainant.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner, according to the FIR, is that on 24.3.2010, at about 8/9.00 p.m., the complainant's daughter went in the fields to answer the call of nature where the petitioner along with his co-accused Abid son of Zafar caught hold of her and committed zina-bil- jabr with her.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case; that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging of FIR; that the medico legal certificate shows that no mark of violence had been found on the body of the victim; that the report of Chemical Examiner is still awaited; as such, the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry; that the petitioner has been behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required to the police for further investigation.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the instant petition on the grounds that the petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of committing Zina with the complainant daughter, who is virgin; that the prosecution witnesses fully support the contents of FIR in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C; that the medico legal report filly supports the prosecution version; that there is sufficient incriminating material available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR and serious allegation of Zina has been levelled against him. But the medico legal report does not support the prosecution version as there are no marks of violence on the body of the victim. It is vehemently argued that the victim is a virgin but the medico legal report speaks otherwise as it is clearly mentioned therein that the vagina admits two fingers. The report of Chemical Examiner is still awaited. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry within the meanings of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The challan has already been submitted. The petitioner has been behind the bars since his arrest i,e, 15.4.2010 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. In these circumstances, his further detention tantamounts to punishment without trial.
7. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.