MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Hafeez, who was charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter with the intent to commit Zina. The core legal question was whether, given the evidentiary record and the statement of the abductee, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court observed that the abductee, in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, did not allege that she was abducted for the purpose of forced marriage or illicit intercourse, nor did she implicate the petitioner in the commission of Zina. Finding that the essential ingredients of the charged offence were not prima facie supported by the abductee's statement, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, establishing the principle that where the victim's statement contradicts the FIR's allegations regarding the intent behind an abduction, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of an allegation of forced marriage or illicit intercourse in a victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail in a case under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the victim's statement contradicts the specific allegations of intent made in the FIR?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner namely Muhammad Hafeez, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 1341/10 dated 15.12.2010 offence under Sections 365-B PPG registered at Police Station Gulgast District Multan with the allegation that petitioner along with co-accused abducted complainant's daughter with the intention of commission of zina with her.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contends that the case against petitioner is totally false, based on concocted, story, the petitioner is innocent and has no concern whatsoever with the alleged occurrence; the main allegation against the petitioner is that he abducted Mat. Nimra for committing Zina but no MLC has been placed on record; he submits that in FIR it is specifically mentioned that she was having 'Gathhrri' with her and on checking of house it transpired that Rs, 10,000/-, one mobile phone and dresses were not available, this very admission shows that MaNimra left the house with her free consent; nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; petitioner is 14 years of age; the co-accused of petitioner has been released on bail; learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the case of petitioner is of further inquiry and, as such, he is entitled to concession of bail after arrest.
3. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for complainant opposes the bail petition and submits that petitioner is named in FIR with a specific role of kidnapping the complainant's daughter. Further submits that petitioner is involved in a heinous crime and, as such, he is not entitled to concession of bail.
4. Heard and record perused.
5. The abductee was recovered and she made a statement that no offence of Zina was committed with her. No doubt she has stated that Mst. Nadia misguided her and on her misguidance, she went to Rawalpindi along with Muhammad Hafeez, petitioner. The abductee when returned back has not alleged in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that she was abducted with the intent to compel her to marry or to establish illicit relations. She has not stated a single word in her statement that petitioner has forced her to get marriage with him or tried to establish illicit inter-course with her.
The complainant has specifically asserted in the FIR that her daughter (the alleged abductee) was abducted for the purpose of committing zina, but the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the abductee does not implicate the petitioner with the alleged offence and, as such, no offence under Section 365-B PPC is made out. Without commenting much on the merits of the case lest it would prejudice the case of either party and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner has succeeded to make out his case of one further inquiry; therefore, the instant post arrest bail petition is allowed. Petitioner Muhammad Hafeez shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 200,000/ (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.