Abdul Ghaffar son of Allah Dawaya vs NOT
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Ghaffar, who was charged in connection with an FIR registered for offences including abduction, wrongful confinement, and rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of rape, the recovery of the victim from his residence, and the existence of incriminating statements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the victim's statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicated the accused in rape, and the chemical report was positive. Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, which carries severe penalties, the Court dismissed the bail application. The ratio established is that where prima facie evidence, including consistent victim statements and forensic reports, connects an accused to a heinous offence, bail is not warranted, regardless of minor procedural delays or the status of co-accused.
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail in a case involving heinous offences?
- Can an accused claim parity with co-accused for bail purposes when the evidence against them is distinguishable?
- Is bail appropriate when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Naimatullah Phulpoto J.- Applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar son of Allah Dawaya has applied for post arrest bail in Crime No.358 of 2013, registered under Sections 380, 506-B, 496-A, 342, 34 PPC at P.S. Mehmoodabad, District South Karachi.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 25.11.2013 complainant Nasir Mehmood lodged F.I.R. alleging therein that on 22.11.2013 at 12:30 hours he had gone out of house for private duty. Present applicant/accused along with others enticed away his wife Saira from the house and took away valuable articles of the house. F.I.R. was recorded vide Crime No.358/2013 under section 380, 506-B, 496-A, 342, 34 PPC at P.S. Mehmoodabad.
3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against the applicant/accused and others under section 496-A, 376, 342, 109, 34 PPC.
4. Bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar, the same was rejected by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 15.02.2014.
Thereafter, the applicant/accused approached this Court.
5. Learned advocate for applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar mainly contended that there is delay of three days in lodging of F.I.R. without explanation and co-accused have been granted bail by trial Court and case of present applicant/accused is identical. Lastly, it is contended that case against the present applicant/accused requires further inquiry.
6. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, learned A.P.G., argued that victim Mst. Saira in her 161 and 164 Cr.PC statements have stated that she was subjected to rape by applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar in his house and she was recovered by the police from his house. He has argued that alleged offence carries capital punishment. He has seriously opposed the bail application.
7. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
8. Record reflects that victim Mst. Saira in her 161 and 164 Cr.PC statements has stated that accused Abdul Ghaffar committed rape with her. Chemical report is positive. Mst. Saira was recovered by the police from the house of applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar on 25.11.2013. Complainant/victim had no enmity whatsoever with applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar to falsely implicate him in this heinous offence. Delay in F.I.R. is no ground for bail in the circumstances of this case. Case of co- accused is distinguishable from the case of applicant/accused. Apparently, there appear reasonable grounds for believing that applicant/accused has committed the alleged offence which is punishable for death or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years and maximum 25 years and shall also be liable to fine. Prima facie, sufficient material/evidence has been collected against the applicant/accused Abdul Ghaffar to connect him in the case. Therefore, no case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused is made out. In view of the above, the bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Needless to mention that observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case on merits.