MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged abduction of a woman. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not initially nominated in the FIR and claimed a valid marriage with the alleged abductee, who had previously filed legal proceedings confirming the union. The Court observed that the petitioner was nominated only through a supplementary statement after the abductee had initiated legal action regarding her marriage. The Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry and probe into his guilt, noting that supplementary statements lack legal sanction and are often used as a device by the police to implicate accused persons. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of the supplementary statement and the conflicting stances of the abductee warranted a trial rather than continued incarceration.
- Is a supplementary statement recorded by the police sufficient to deny bail to an accused not named in the initial FIR?
- Does a claim of valid marriage between the accused and the alleged abductee constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry when the alleged victim changes her stance after the arrest of the accused?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 181/ 2010 dated 22.05.2010, offence under Section 365-B PPC, registered with Police Station Basti Malook District Multan, wherein it is alleged that on 10.05.2010 at about 4:00 a.m. Mst. Shazia, daughter of the complainant, in order to ease herself, went to the Courtyard situated at backside of her house, when after few minutes the other inhabitants heard her hue and cry and they went to the scene and saw that the accused persons, named in the FIR, forcibly abducted daughter of the complainant, in order to commit Zina-bil- Jabar with her.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; that actually Mst. Shazia Bibi has lawfully entered into a valid Nikah with the petitioner and in this context she has filed an harassm ent petition before the learned Justice of Peace and while appearing made a statement about the fact of marriage; that she also filed W.P. No, 3025/2010 at Bahawalpur Bench of this Court, in which vide order dated 10.06.2010 notice was issued to the respondents for appearance before the Court on 26.06.2010; that during the pendency of said writ petition, through supplementary statement dated 13.06.2010, the petitioner was nominated and arrested.
3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that the abductee has been recovered and she implicated the present petitioner; that the MLC of the victim was also obtained vide dated 18.06.2010.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. It seems that as soon as the petitioner was arrested, the abductee, under some influence, completely changed her stance, otherwise she alongwith the petitioner not only has been appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but also before this Court. Even otherwise, supplementary statement has no sanction of law and it is recent device employed by the police to involve the accused; therefore, case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry and probe into his guilt. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.