ADNAN ALI and others vs The STATE
This criminal miscellaneous matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail arising from a common FIR registered under sections 354-A, 170, 506-11 and 376/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of abduction, impersonation, criminal intimidation, and gang rape. The core legal questions pertained to whether delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in the medical report regarding the victim's hymen, and arguments of further inquiry warranted the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that at the bail stage, evidence is to be assessed tentatively, and the consistent statement of the victim implicating the accused—coupled with the absence of prior animosity and the gravity of the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—sufficiently justified declining bail. The court laid down the principle that the statement of a victim in a brutal sexual assault case, when corroborated by her prompt approach to authorities and lack of apparent motive for false implication, is sufficient at the pre-trial stage to deny bail, leaving medical discrepancies to be resolved at trial.
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR in a sexual assault case provide sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sufficient to decline bail when coupled with a heinous offence?
- Can discrepancies between a victim's claim and the medical report regarding a ruptured hymen be resolved at the bail stage through deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail absent strong grounds for further inquiry?
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506-11, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
YAR MUHAMMAD, J.---By this single order, I will propose to dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No, 160/2015 titled Asif Hussain v. The State and Cr. Misc. No,'143/2015 titled Adnan Ali etc. v. The State as these applications have arisen from common FIR.
2. Through these applications the petitioners have prayed for their enlargement on bail who are now in judicial lock-up Gilgit facing trial of a criminal case vide FIR No,65/2015 registered under sections 354-A, 170, 506-11 and 376/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Jutial, Gilgit.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as divulging from the FIR is that on 29-7-2015 at about 21:30 hours victim Zahida Aziz submitted an application to SHO of the Police Station stating that on 26-7-2015 she was available in her home situated at Zulfiqarabad, Gilgit that at about 7 p.m. Accused Adnan Ali contacted her through mobile phone and told her to came out from the house with a pretext of some important job. On this she came at the gate of the house where she saw accused Zulfiqar and one other person exposing himself to be a police personnel besides accused Adnan were present with a car. The accused put her in the car on gun-point prohibiting her not to cry otherwise they will kill her and thereafter the accused turn by turn committed Zina with her. They also made slaps to her and also took pictures and warned her if she told about the offence to anyone, the pictures will be shown to her family members. They took her to University road while committing Zina and later on dropped in her home.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing tried the case to make one of further inquiry and in this regard mainly submitted that the FIR has been registered after three days of the occurrence and no plausible explanation in this regard has been made. They contended that statement of the victim has been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., and also the victim has been medically examined and obtained medical report thus, presumed that under the attending circumstances both medical report and the statement of the victim should be supportive and corroborative to each other but same is missing in the instant case for the reason that victim claiming virginity while the medical report shows that the vagina of the victim admitted two fingers easily and so much so no other sign of violence was found on her body despite the fact that hymen was not intact and if presumed that hymen was ruptured three days before there should have bleeding of fresh rupture about which the medical report is silent, therefore, the hymen was old rupture and claim of virginity and commission of rape is highly doubtful.
5. The learned Dy. Advocate General assisted by private counsel on the other hand contended that delay in lodging of FIR is no ground in like cases. The victim has lodged the FIR against the accused and subsequently while appearing before a Magistrate has recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Involving the present accused/petitioners in the offence and at this stage the only statement of the victim is enough to decline the bail matter.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of material made available to me for consideration. The evidence gathered by the I.O. At this stage normally is assessed tentatively avoiding deeper appreciation which would be made at trial.
The victim girl who resides in a narrow society where normally such person avoids to be exposed herself and to take risk of such blame specially when the victim is still unmarried but in this case, as the record shows, the victim has been subject in zina in brutal manner by the accused, she even couraged to appear before a police officer first and then before a court of competent jurisdiction and made a detailed statement about her grievance, fully implicating the accused and confirming the contents of the FIR. According to the statement of the victim girl, she was taken away forcibly from her home and committed zina with her by the accused against her will and in such cases the statement of the victim is sufficient to suggest that the accused have committed the alleged offence when the same is considered coupling with the fact that any animosity between the parties, is absent for false implication. It is presumed that the victim would have not dishonoured herself or her family without any reason. The accused have committed a heinous offence was hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. So, for the medical report being silent about the hymen rupture as to whether the same was old or fresh, same would be determined by the trial court but it is admitted that at the time when the victim was medically examined the hymen was not intact.
8. For the reasons what have been discussed above, I find no merits in these petitions, therefore, dismissed.