Pakistan Case Law
PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 726

ASGHAR ALI vs STATE etc.

⭐ Prefer in Google
CitationPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 726
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Misc. No, 2536-B of 2015
Date2015-08-05
Judge(s)Aslam Javed Minhas
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, Asghar Ali, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 181/2015 registered under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, on allegations of forcible abduction and gang rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the DNA analysis report, medico-legal report, and police investigation findings. The Lahore High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the DNA report implicated a co-accused rather than the petitioner, the medico-legal report indicated consensual relations, there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged abduction, and the petitioner had been declared innocent during the police investigation. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the DNA report and medico-legal report point towards consensual relations rather than forcible gang rape?
  • Does a police report declaring an accused innocent bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under criminal procedure?
  • Is bail granted when there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged abduction and nothing is recovered from the possession of the accused?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 376(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailgang rapefurther inquiryDNA analysis reportmedico-legal reportconsensual relationscriminal procedure

ORDER

' Petitioner Asghar Ali seeks his post arrest bail in a case bearing FIR No, 181/2015, dated 01.03.2015, offence under Section 376(ii), PPC, registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. -

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with his co-accused forcibly abducted Mst. Nasim, daughter of the complainant and committed gang rape with her due to which she got pregnant.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. According to the DNA Analysis Report dated 03.08.2015, Imran (co-accused) cannot be excluded as being the biological father of Misbah (minor) because they share alleles at all genetic markers tested. That means petitioner did not commit rape with the daughter of the petitioner In the medico legal report, the victim herself stated that, she used to work in the fields. There she used to talk Imran and they do intercourse many times about a year in the fields. With the will of Naseem and 2 other boys do intercourse a month back. They told her not to tell anyone about the act. She is not sure of her LMP. She is unmarried. She is pregnant. The above statement of the victim shows that gang-rape was not committed with her rather if zina was committed, the same was with her own free will. It was a day light occurrence then how it was possible for the petitioner and his co- accused to abduct forcibly daughter of the complainant among so many people working in the fields and to take her to their dera for commission of gang-rape. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence of abduction. The petitioner has been arrested and nothing has been recovered from his possession. Co-accused, Imran has also been arrested. According to the report o Muhammad Bakhsh, Inspector dated 05.03.2015 the petitioner has been declared innocent. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner definitely requires further inquiry. This being so, this bail application is allowed and Asghar Ali, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.