MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE vs STATE & another
This judgment disposes of two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail arising out of FIR No. 814/2010 registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Raza Abad, District Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail considering the contents of the FIR, statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, delayed rectifications of names, and the ground of absconsion. The Lahore High Court held that petitioner Muhammad Shafique was entitled to bail as the victim's initial statement under Section 161 omitted his name and named another person, while a subsequent rectification made after two years rendered his case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that absconsion alone does not bar bail if merits are established. Conversely, the bail petition of Muhammad Adnan was dismissed due to specific allegations in the FIR and Section 161 statements, coupled with being found guilty during investigation. The key principle laid down is that a highly delayed rectification of a victim's statement implicating an accused, coupled with initial omissions, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and an accused's absconsion does not preclude the grant of bail if a meritorious case is made out.
- Does a highly delayed rectification of a victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
- Can an accused be denied post-arrest bail solely on the ground of absconsion when a meritorious case for bail is otherwise made out?
- Does the omission of an accused's name in the initial statement of the victim under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
By this single order, I would like to dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 16484-B/2012 filed by Muhammad Shafique/ petitioner and Crl. Misc. No, 16707-B/2012 filed by Muhammad Adnan/petitioner as both are arising out of one and the same FIR.
2. Through the instant petition, Muhammad Shafique petitioner, whereas by means of Crl. Misc. No, 16707-B/2012, Muhammad Adnan, petitioner, seek their post arrest bail in case FIR No, 814/2010, dated 13.11.2010, offence under Sections 376, 420, PPC, registered with Police Station, Raza Abad, District Faisalabad.
3. Allegation against the petitioners in brief, as contained in the crime report is that they committed zina bil jabr with Mst. Ishrat Bibi and also snatched gold ornaments weighing 1 1/2 tolas and clothes valuing Rs, 30,000/-.
4. While opening his arguments, learned counsel for Muhammad Shafique petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives. It is argued that there is delay of 12/13 days in lodging the crime report, for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution.
Adds that though there is specific allegation of commission of zina against the petitioner in thc crime report, but the same is baseless. Learned counsel contends that Mst. Ishrat Bibi, the victim of the instant case in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. repeatedly stated that Muhammad Adnan and Zulifqar committed Zina with her and as such she has not implicated the petitioner with the commission of the offence alleged against him and this fact alone is sufficient to make the case against the petitioner to be falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Syed Zaman Haider, Advocate for Muhammad Adnan petitioner while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Muhammad Shafique petitioner adds that the allegation of extracting money and gold ornaments from the victim as stated in the crime report was found false during the course of investigation. As far as allegation of zina-bil-jabr is concerned, learned counsel submits that as report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court there were illicit relations between the petitioner and the victim, therefore, the question of forcible zina is not there. It is contended that the petitioner is behind the bars since 11 months and investigation being complete his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.
Contrarily learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition with full force. It is argued that the petitioners are named in the crime report with specific allegation of commission of Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Ishrat Bibi. Moreover, the petitioners were found guilty during the course of investigation and their name have been placed in Column No, 3 of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners remained absconders for more than one year. As far as mentioning the name of Zulifqar by the victim in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel argued that the same had been rectified by the victim through her statement recorded on 18.08.2012. In such circumstances, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
7. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
8. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners are named in the crime report with specific allegation, but I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioners to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. When confronted, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant frankly conceded that Ishrat Bibi, victim of the instant case has repeatedly stated in her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that Muhammad Adnan and Zulifqar have committed zina with her and she has not named Muhammad Shafique petitioner in this regard. Though as per contention of learned counsel for the complainant the namely of Zulifqar has been rectified as Muhammad Shafique (present petitioner) on 18.08.2012 i,e, with the delay of about two years and such delayed statement in this regard itself makes the case against Muhammad Shafique petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Moreover, bail could be granted if the accused has good case for grant of bail on merits and his absconsion would not come in the way while granting him bail. Reliance is placed upon Mitho Pitafi Vs. The State (2009 SCM R 299). As far as the case of Muhammad Adnan petitioner is concerned, the same is quite distinguishable from the case of Muhammad Shafique petitioner. ##TE#There is specific allegation of zina against him in the crime report as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. He was also found guilty during the course of investigation.
9. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to accept the petition filed by Muhammad Shafique petitioner. Resultantly, he is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, Crl. Misc. No, 16707-B/2012 filed on behalf of Muhammad Adnan petitioner being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.