MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B, 376, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances, including a significant delay in FIR registration and the existence of a Nikahnama. The court observed that the complainant was a major, and there was an unexplained 31-day delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the complainant had previously appeared before a Magistrate and a Sessions Judge regarding other matters but failed to report the alleged abduction or Zina at those opportunities. Additionally, the existence of a Nikahnama raised questions regarding the prosecution's version. Holding that the case against the petitioner constituted a matter of further inquiry, the court accepted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in FIR registration and the complainant had prior opportunities to report the offense to judicial authorities but failed to do so, the case may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does an unexplained 31-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the failure of a complainant to report an alleged offense during prior court appearances impact the credibility of the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when there is a disputed Nikahnama and contradictory statements by the complainant?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Ajmal, the petitioner, seeks grant of post-arrest bail in criminal case FIR No, 421 dated 07.08.2013 registered under Sections 365-B & 376, PPC at Police Station Zahir Peer, Tehsil Khanpur, District Rahim Yar Khan. Section 452, PPC was added later on.
2. According to the contents of FIR, the petitioner and the co-accused had visiting terms. On the day of occurrence, Abdul Shakoor a truck driver, came to the house of the complainant and informed her that her brother Abdul Shakoor had met a road side accident. The complainant taking away. Rs, 11,000/- in cash and gold ornaments left with the informant. The petitioner and the co-accused told the witnesses that they were escorting the complainant to the place of incident.
The petitioner was armed with a pistol. She was taken to the medical colony in Bahawalpur and was subjected to Zina by Ajmal. The rest of the accused kept the guard. The complainant had a chance to escape on 20.04.2013.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay of 31 days between the alleged occurrence and registration of the FIR; that the petitioner has solemnized nikah with the abductee on 07.04.2013 and the same was registered in accordance with law; that the abductee filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate Bahawalpur on 08-7-2013 and had her statement recorded the same day. She also filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge Bahawalpur alleging harassment against her parents and had her statement recorded the same day; that the abductee when appeared before the Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, had a chance to apprise them of the commission of any offence, if she was subjected to; that the contents of FIR and the statement made by the complainant before the Magistrate are contradictory to each other as in her statement made under Section 164, Cr.P.C., she has levelled allegation of commission of Zina against three other accused beside the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, the grant of bail is opposed by the learned APG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. Contend that the abductee after her release refuted the nikah with the petitioner and that whenever she had a chance to escape, she did that and had this FIR lodged and statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C., wherein she has specifically levelled the allegation of abduction and commission of Zina.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The abductee is a major. She was allegedly abducted on 06.07.2013. Her parents could have promptly lodged an FIR against the accused. The delay of 31 days in the alleged occurrence and lodging of the FIR is not completely explained. There is a Nikahnama on record. At this stage, it cannot be said that it is a false document. The complainant had a chance when she appeared before the Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur to apprise the said Courts about her alleged abduction and commission of zina. She opted not to do so. In the circumstances, prima facie, the case against the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry. This petition , is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (rupees two lac) with one surely in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Bail admitted.