BABAR ALI vs The STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Babar Ali seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No.94 dated 1-6-2014 registered under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Husseke, District Hafizabad, for allegedly committing rape upon a 12-year-old minor. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the FIR, the medical evidence, and the heinous nature of the offence. The court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for further inquiry, noting that the delay in the FIR was satisfactorily explained due to the social stigma and trauma associated with reporting such crimes, and that the medical evidence was consistent with the allegations. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that heinous offences carrying severe penalties falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the denial of bail when reasonable grounds connect the accused to the crime and no tenable grounds for further inquiry exist.
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case justify the grant of post-arrest bail when the delay is satisfactorily explained?
- Whether an offence carrying a penalty of twenty-five years' imprisonment brings the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail to be refused when the medical evidence is consistent with the allegations of a heinous crime and no tenable explanation for false implication is provided?
- Section 376(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Babar Ali, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.94 dated 1-6-2014 registered under Section 376(i), P.P.C. At Police Station Husseke, District Hafizabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed rape upon a 12-year-old minor.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is 'a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR, while medicolegal examination of the victim was conducted eleven days after the occurrence; that statement of Mst. Kalsoom, who is alleged to have arrived at the scene of occurrence was not recorded by the police; that there is tenuous evidence to connect the petitioner, with the commission of the offence; that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case; that he is a previous non-convict; that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular account; and that there are sufficient grounds calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.
4. Learned D.P.G, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner committed a heinous offence, which is punishable with twenty-five years' imprisonment. It has also been rebutted and controverted that the medical evidence is at odds with the ocular account.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have outraged the modesty of a minor, leaving scars both on her body and soul. The trauma suffered by her would haunt her throughout her life. As things stand, the medical evidence is per se consistent with the allegation made against the petitioner. The petitioner has not offered, any explanation, let alone a tenable one as to why he has been singled out to implicate him falsely in the case.
7. No doubt, the FIR was lodged some ten days after the alleged occurrence, but the delay has been satisfactorily explained. At the time, the parents of the minor victim were not at home and they had gone to another district for earning their livelihood, leaving the victim in the custody of one Muhammad All son of Karam Ali. Furthermore, it needs guts to get a case of rape registered, for the registration of case amounts to announcing to all and sundry that the victim is no longer virgin, due to which her marriage prospects are blighted. Therefore, in such cases the delay in lodging the FIR is. Quite understandable.
8. Since the offence with which the petitioner is charged carries a penalty of twenty-five years' imprisonment, it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., dis entitling him to the granting of bail, especially when the petitioner has failed to make out a 'case of further inquiry.
9. For -what has been stated above, the petition for the grant of post-arrest bail is hereby dismissed. Bail declined
Cited by 1 case
- ALI RAZA AZAM alias SANA Versus State 2022 YLRN 117