Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF vs STATE and another
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case arising from FIR No. 333 of 2010 registered at Police Station Saddar Pattoki, District Kasur, under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the subsequent addition of Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail after the addition of the rape charge, given that he had already been granted bail for the abduction charge and the alleged abductee had stated she contracted a valid marriage with him. The Lahore High Court held that the commission of the offence under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was open to serious doubt and further detention would not serve the prosecution, as there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The petition was allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, establishing the principle that subsequent addition of a penal charge does not preclude bail when the evidentiary basis is rendered doubtful by statements of the alleged victim.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a more serious offence is subsequently added by the investigating officer?
- Does the statement of an alleged abductee affirming a valid marriage with the petitioner render the charge under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 open to serious doubt?
- When are grounds considered sufficient for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused seeking bail?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous, the petitioner has sought his post arrest bail, in a case arising out of FIR No, 333/2010, dated 28.8.2010, registered in Police Station Saddar Pattoki, District Kasur, under Section 365-B PPC and subsequently added Section 376 PPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been granted post arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 31.1.2011, passed in Crl. Misc. No, 410/B/ 2011, for the offence under Section 365-B PPC, but later on offence under Section 376 PPC has been added by the Investigating Officer with mala fide intention. He further submitted that the alleged abductee appeared in this Court on 31.1.2011 and made statement that she has contracted a valid marriage with Rana Muhammad Asif/present petitioner, thus the commission of offence under Section 376 PPC is not made out.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the instant petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner was granted post arrest bail for the alleged commission of an offence falling under Section 365-B PPC, vide order dated 31.1.2011, passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No, 410/R/2011, wherein the alleged abductee Mst. Sumaira not only personally appeared in the Court on 31.01.2011 but also categorically stated that she contracted a valid marriage with the present petitioner.
Hence, the "commission of an offence, under Section 376 PPC, by the present petitioner is open to serious doubt. His former detention for the commission of the alleged offence falling under Section 376 PPC would not serve any purpose or advance the case of the prosecution, particularly, when there are sufficient grounds to enquire further into guilt of the present petitioner. Resultantly, the instant post arrest bail petition, filed on behalf of Rana Muhammad Asif, qua the commission of an offence under Section 376 PPC is allowed and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.