AMJAD SHAHEEN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of attempted rape and criminal trespass. The petitioner was accused of entering the complainant's house, causing injuries, and attempting to commit zina bil jabr. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The court's decision was based on several factors: an extraordinary delay of approximately 45 days in reporting the incident to the police; the absence of medical examination of the complainant despite allegations of injury; the failure to produce torn clothing as evidence; and the lack of specific allegations regarding the physical act of attempted rape. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation revealed a prior monetary dispute between the parties and an affidavit from a witness suggesting the FIR was lodged due to mala fides. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry and that false implication could not be ruled out.
- Does an extraordinary delay in lodging an FIR, combined with a lack of corroborating medical evidence, warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the existence of a prior monetary dispute between parties be considered a ground for suspecting mala fides in a criminal case?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the specific allegations of an offense require further inquiry due to evidentiary gaps?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Amjad Shaheen petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 11/2012 dated 10.01.2012 offences under Sections 376/511, PPC at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu District Khanewal.
2. According to the FIR, on the night falling between 24/25.11.2011 Amjad Shaheen petitioner who was allegedly armed with pistol along with one unknown culprit criminally tress passed into the house of the complainant and tried to commit zina bil jabr with Mst. Nasreen Bibi complainant. It has further been alleged in the FIR that petitioner and one unknown culprit caused injuries on her (complainant) person and torn her clothes. Hence, instant FIR was registered.
3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned DPG, it has been noticed that instant occurrence took place on the night falling between 24/25.11.2011 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 10.01.2012 with an extra ordinary delay of about 45 days.
Although, it was specifically alleged by the complainant that petitioner and one unknown culprit caused injuries on her person but she was not medically-examined by the lady doctor. The complainant also did not produce her torn clothes before the Investigating Officer during investigation of this case. Neither there is allegation against the petitioner that he removed Shalwar of Mst. Nasreen Bibi nor allegedly he removed his own shalwar. It has not been alleged by the complainant that petitioner mounted on her, therefore, application of offences under Sections 376/511, PPC against the petitioner requires further inquiry. On 26.06.2015 during investigation of this case, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that there was dispute of money between the petitioner and Mst. Nasreen Bibi complainant. During investigation, Saleem son of Sameoul PW submitted an affidavit before the police that no such occurrence took place and that instant FIR has been lodged by the complainant on the basis of mala fides. In these circumstances, false involvement of the petitioner in the instant case on the basis of malafides cannot be ruled out.
4. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.09.2015 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.