Abdul Razzaq vs The State etc.
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 737/14, registered under Section 496-A and Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Nankana Sahib. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest, given the evidentiary inconsistencies and the stage of the investigation. The Court observed a twenty-nine-day unexplained delay in the FIR's registration and noted significant contradictions between the alleged abductee's statements recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Specifically, the abductee did not implicate the petitioner in the act of rape, and the prosecution's narrative appeared doubtful. The Court held that the petitioner's case falls under the category of further inquiry, as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail, especially when the accused is a previous non-convict and the investigation is complete, rendering further incarceration unnecessary.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Can bail be denied solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offense?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.737/14 dated 17.12.2014 under section 496-A PPC, section 376 PPC was added subsequently, registered at Police Station Saddar Nankana Sahib, District Nankana Sahib.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of twenty nine days in the registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant. The alleged abductee namely Sobia Bibi got recorded her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she alleged that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused abducted her but nobody committed zina with her and she did not want to get herself medically examined. However, while recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she alleged that she was handed over to Khurram, Kiran, Komal and Sohail by the petitioner and co-accused at Lahore who kept her at different places where some unknown persons had been committing zina with her. This creates doubt in the prosecution story. Even otherwise, the alleged abductee has not levelled allegation of rape against the present petitioner. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail. The present petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 19.12.2014.
Investigation to his extent is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.