AYYAZ HUSSAIN and 2 others vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Ayyaz Hussain and his two sons, seeking pre-trial liberty in F.I.R No. 155 registered under Sections 496-A, 365-B, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Jalalpur Pir Wala. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where the entire family has been nominated and the primary allegation of rape implicates a co-accused rather than the petitioners, alongside contradictory statements from the alleged victims. The Lahore High Court held that the involvement of the entire family in such an immoral pursuit is inconceivable, and since one alleged abductee did not support the prosecution story, the case against the petitioners falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds.
- Whether the involvement of an entire family in an abduction and rape case constitutes a ground for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary allegation of rape is directed against a co-accused and the victim's statements are contradictory?
- Does a contradiction between statements of alleged abductees warrant the grant of bail pending trial?
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Ayyaz Hussain and his sons, namely, Sultan and Rizwan were arrested on 24.04.2015 in a case registered vide F.I.R No, 155 under Sections 496-A, 365-B, 376, PPC, with Police Staion City Jalalpur Pir Wala on 04.04.2015 on the application of Muhammad Fayyaz, who alleged that a fortnight back, his wife Sheeran and sister-in-law Shiasta were deceitfully taken away by Ayyaz Hussain petitioner accompanied by his wife; in total six persons were nominated in the crime; one of the alleged abductees, namely Shaista did not support the case set up in the First Information Report however, his wife Sheeran alleged that one of the accused, namely, Shoukat committed rape with her.
2. Heard.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners are father and sons inter-se even Shamim wife of Ayyaz Hussain petitioner has not been spared by the complainant. It is inconceivable that the whole family would join hands in an immoral pursuit. The case revolves around Shoukat who is alleged to have committed rape with Sheeran PW Shiasta witness of equal importance has not subscribed to the prosecution story. Whether the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged in the First.
Information Report is n question, which for the present, calls for further inquiry. Consequently, the petition is allowed; petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.