Mohammad Suleman vs The State
This criminal bail application was filed by applicant Mohammad Suleman seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 292/2014 registered under Sections 376 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi, on charges of rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed F.I.R., discrepancies regarding the victim's age, lack of specific dates of the occurrence, and conflicting medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting the unexplained delay in reporting, lack of specific timing, age discrepancies between the F.I.R. and medical certificates, and the absence of definitive corroborative medical evidence linking the applicant to the crime at the relevant time. The court laid down the principle that where critical medical evidence is lacking, and significant discrepancies exist regarding the timing of the offence and the victim's age, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, making the accused eligible for bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of specific dates and times of the alleged offence?
- Does a discrepancy between the age stated in the FIR and the age recorded in medical certificates create a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Is an accused entitled to bail in a heinous offence when corroborative medical evidence is lacking at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
O R D E R MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.:- Through this criminal bail application, applicant/accused Mohammad Suleman has prayed for grant of bail in F.I.R. No. 292/2014 under Sections 376/34 PPC, P.S Shah Latif Town, Karachi.
2. The facts giving rise to the present bail application are that on 25.06.2014 at 1740 hours complainant Mst. Afroze Khatoon w/o Mohammad Ayoub lodged F.I.R at the police station Shah Latif Town, stating therein that she use to reside alongwith her family at the given address and has a daughter, Kulsoom aged about 12/13 years. It is alleged by the complainant that her daughter was forcibly taken away by Mohammad Suleman to his house in order to commit rape, due to which her daughter became pregnant, but she did not disclose these facts to the complainant or anybody else. It is further disclosed that at the time of committing rape by accused Mohammad Suleman, one Abdul Razak guarded at the door and both extended threats to her daughter that if she disclosed the incident, she alongwith her family would be murdered. As the abdomen of her daughter was getting enlarged day by day, therefore, the complainant took her daughter in confidence and asked her about the reality, who disclosed these facts. When the complainant confronted Mohammad Suleman and Abdul Razzak they took out pistol and issued her threats of dire consequences. Thereafter on 19.04.2014 the complainant took her daughter to the hospital and got her aborted/cleaned. She than filed petition under section 22-A Cr.P.C before the Sessions Judge, Malir and lodged the present F.I.R. The police arrested accused and after investigation challan was submitted before the Court, whereas the name of co-accused Abdul Razzak was shown in column No.2 of the challan sheet. The present applicant/accused moved bail application before the Trial Court in Sessions Case No.850/2014, same was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2014, which is impugned before this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G and perused the case record. It is contended by learned counsel that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. Infact the accused is Hafiz-e- Quran and running a Kiryana shop in the area, whereby the complainant was purchasing house hold necessities on credit basis, when the applicant demanded outstanding amount from the complainant there arose a dispute, due to which he has been implicated in this case falsely. It is further contended that there is delay of 7/8 months in lodging the F.I.R without any plausible explanation. No medical record is there to connect the present applicant/accused with the commission of crime; hence it is a case of further inquiry. He has further added that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in thickly populated area, where such forceful commission of rape is almost impossible. Per F.I.R the age of alleged victim is stated to be 12/13 years, whereas in the medical certificate dated 26.04.2014 age of the victim is given as 20 years. As medical report is lacking in this case, therefore, the present applicant/accused is entitled for the concession of bail.
In support of his contentions he has relied upon the case of Sultan Murad v/s. The State (2012 M LD 235).
4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned A.P.G that the name of the accused is appearing in the F.I.R with specific role assigned against him. The victim in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has implicated the present applicant/accused with the commission of crime, thus no case for grant of bail is made out. However, at the same time he has conceded that F.I.R is delayed and no fix date and time of incident is disclosed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the case record. In the present case though there are serious allegations against the accused Mohammad Suleman, but the perusal of F.I.R and other record reveal that the complainant has not given any specific date or time in respect of commission of offence. Further it is the case of complainant that her daughter due to fear did not disclose the facts to anyone and after her obvious change in physical appearance her mother compelled her to disclose the truth. Even in such situation when her daughter disclosed about the fact of alleged rape, it is not understandable as to why instead of lodging the report against the culprits the victim was taken to a private hospital and she was got aborted. Subsequently, after lodging the F.I.R she was examined by the Women Medical Officer at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) on 26.06.2014, when as per report at the time of her examination she was menstruating. Another important aspect of the matter is that in the F.I.R the complainant has disclosed age of her daughter as 12/13 years but the medical certificate placed on record shows her age as 20 years. No doubt that the victim in her statements under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C has implicated the present applicant/accused with the commission of crime but medical evidence, which is of utmost important value in such like cases is missing, therefore, under these circumstances it appears that it is a fit case for further inquiry. Even otherwise the case has been challaned and is pending trial before the competent Court of law, therefore, I am of the view that present applicant/accused has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the same is granted subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.