MAZHAR and anothers vs The STATE and anothers
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation, specifically the delay in the F.I.R., the discharge of a co-accused, and the medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case has become doubtful due to the complainant's admission that a co-accused was falsely implicated, the absence of violence marks on the victim, and a negative DNA report. Furthermore, the investigation is complete, and the petitioners have no prior criminal record. The Court emphasized that the heinous nature of an offence does not constitute a valid ground to refuse bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to the concession. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, finding that the case warrants further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and admitted the petitioners to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the heinous nature of an offence justify the refusal of bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to it?
- Can the discharge of a co-accused based on the complainant's statement render the prosecution's story doubtful for the remaining accused?
- Is a negative DNA report and the absence of violence marks on a victim sufficient to warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 376(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Mazhar and Javaid Iqbal petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 168 of 2012, dated 22-6-2012 registered at Police Station Kasessay, District Hafizabad in respect of an offence under section 376(ii), P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives by widening the net and after joining hands with the local police. There is a delay of two days in registration of F.I.R. Which has not been explained by the complainant. One nominated accused namely Jamshaid alias Shadoo has been discharged in this case on the statement of complainant. So the story narrated in the F.I.R. Has become doubtful. The medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular account and the DNA report is negative in this case. There is only statement of victim in this case and there is no other corroboration from any quarter. Investigation is complete. The petitioners are previous non- convict and are not involved in any other case. Thus, continuous incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any beneficial purpose.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.
And specific role is attributed to them. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. On the part of the complainant. The delay if any is due to police which was not attending to the grievance of the petitioner. Even otherwise in such like cases delay does not matter. The accused persons are continuously extending threats to the complainant in this case. During investigation the petitioners have been found involved by the investigating officer and case with which the petitioners are charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed that there is a delay of two days in registration of F.I.R. One co- accused the petitioner namely Jamshaid alias Shadoo has been discharged on the statement of the complainant made before the police during the investigation of this case in which she has categorically stated that she has involved the above said accused due to misunderstanding so the story narrated in the F.I.R. Has become doubtful. According to the Medico-legal Certificate there are no marks of violence on the person of the victim. Report of DNA test is negative. The investigation is complete. Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any criminal case. Their further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
Heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused when otherwise became entitled the concession of bail.
5. For what has been discussed above the case of the petitioner's calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Bai1 granted.
Cited by 1 case
- MOULA BUX vs The STATE 2017 YLR 1234