Abdur Razzaq vs The State and another
This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed a significant, unexplained delay of over two months in the registration of the FIR, suggesting potential deliberation and mala fide intent. Furthermore, the alleged abductee consistently maintained that she married the petitioner of her own free will, a fact supported by a Nikah Nama and her statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the petitioner’s false implication due to familial grudge could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to relief.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR indicate potential mala fide intent in a criminal case?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a bail application concerning alleged abduction?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 498 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.51/2016, dated 22.02.2016 registered under section 365-B PPC at Police Station Lundianwala District Faisalabad.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of two months and fourteen days in the registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberations and consultations. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused abducted Mst. Kalsoom Rani on 08.12.2015 and also committed theft of valuable articles and cash of Rs.15000/- from the house of the complainant.
It has also been noticed by this Court that the alleged abductee Mst. Kaslsoom Rani has contracted Nikah with the petitioner on 24.11.2015 before the registration of the instant case and in this regard copy of the Nikah Nama is attached with this petition and the said abductee also filed private complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate, Lahore on 10.12.2015 and also recorded her statement that she has not been abducted by anybody rather she contr acted marriage with petitioner with her free will and consent. Mst. Kalsoom Rani the alleged abductee also recorded her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate Section 30, District Court, Lahore wherein she stated that she being sui-juris has contracted marriage with petitioner Abdul Razzaq on 24.11.2015 with her free consent and now she is living happily and performing matrimonial obligations under the four corners of Islam. Today the alleged abductee Mst. Kalsoom Rani appeared before this court and got recorded her statement before the Investigation Officer that she has contracted marriage with the petitioner Abdul Razzaq with her free consent and nobody has abducted her. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non- convicts. He has already joined the investigation. Only because imprisonment of offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise he became entitled to grant of pre-arrest bail.
3. For what has been discussed above, false implication of the present petitioner by the complainant with malafide intention due to the grudge that his daughte r contracted love marriage with petitioner cannot be ruled out of consideration.
The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already grante d to the petitioner vide this Court' s order dated 29.04.2016 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Area Magistrate.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.