MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an 80-year-old accused charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter and theft of valuables. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, being the elderly father of the primary accused, was entitled to bail given the allegations of abduction and the disputed status of the alleged victim's marriage to his son. The Court held that the petitioner's advanced age and his relationship as the father of the co-accused raised significant doubts regarding his involvement, suggesting potential mala fide or ulterior motives by the complainant in implicating the entire male lineage of the family. The Court observed that the investigation had failed to adequately probe the marriage claim despite the existence of a Nikahnama. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the implication of an elderly parent in an offence of moral turpitude allegedly committed by their children requires careful scrutiny, as such involvement is inherently improbable and may indicate malicious prosecution.
- Does the advanced age of an accused parent, when implicated alongside their children in an offence of moral turpitude, constitute a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Should a court grant bail when the investigation appears reluctant to verify a marriage claim that could potentially exculpate the accused?
- Can the implication of an entire family of male members in a criminal case raise a presumption of mala fide or ulterior motives by the complainant?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
2. ' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,562 of 2011, dated 28-5-2011 under section 365-B P.P.C., registered at Police Station Factory Area, District Sheikhupura.
2. Muhammad Mukhtar Khan complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. That his daughter Mst.Nagina Shehzadi, aged 20 was alone at her house when accused Mazhar, Azhar, Zahid, Khizar and Muhammad Amin (petitioner) abducted her on 26-5-2011; witnesses Ghulam Qadir and Muhammad Imran witnessed the occurrence; the accused also took with them gold ornaments weighing 22 tolas and cash Rs, 1,50,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused petitioner is aged 80 and father of his co-accused who are real brothers inter se; accused Khizar worked at the house of the complainant for many years and he developed liaison with Mst.Nagina Shehzadi which led to their marriage on 4-6-2011; the alleged victim filed a private complaint against her parents and others under sections 452/506/34, P.P.C. Wherein she admitted to have solemnized Nikah with Khizar Hayat accused; all the able bodied male members of the petitioner have been falsely involved in this case so he may be set at liberty.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner along with his co-accused forcibly abducted the daughter of the complainant and also stole valuables worth lacs of rupees; the abductee is yet to be recovered who is in the clutches of the accused; mere old-age of the petitioner without any element of sickness does not help the petitioner in any manner; nikahnama was neither produced before the Investigating Officer nor it stands verified during the investigation.
5.After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that petitioner is real father of his co-accused. His implication as an accused in this case, in the said perspective raises eyebrows, for, society has not run so bankrupt that a father would encourage or accompany his sons to commit an offence of moral turpitude or an offence like the one, under discussion. He has been stated to be aged 80 and it is the stage of life, which may bring senility as well. The factum of marriage between accused Khizar and Mst. Nagina Shehzadi is still to be probed into by the Investigating Officer who despite having received a copy or nikahnama appears to be reluctant to investigate the case from the said angle as Khizar Hayat accused has not been arrested so far. All able bodied male members of family of the petitioner have been involved in this case along with the petitioner whose false implication in this case being father of his co-accused and due to malice or ulterior motives of the complainant cannot be ruled out. To keep the petitioner incarcerated further would be of no consequence to the case of prosecution. Therefore, I accept this application and admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.