Fidda Hussain and another vs The State and another
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 287/15 registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kalyana, District Pakpattan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the exoneration of several co-accused during investigation, the alleged victim's statement and Nikah Nama indicating a free-will marriage, and the absence of any recovery. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in reporting, coupled with a prima facie voluntary marriage contract by the abductee and lack of recoveries or previous criminal record, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR for abduction and rape constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the execution of a Nikah Nama and a statement by the alleged abductee regarding a free-will marriage justify granting post-arrest bail to the accused?
- Whether the lack of recoveries and the completion of investigation make the further incarceration of an accused in a heinous offense unnecessary?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioners Fidda Hussain and Qadeer have sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.287/15 dated 05.09.2015 under sections 365-B, 376 PPC, Police Station Kalyana District Pakpattan.
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 after arrest and deeper apprec iation is not allowed at this stage.
The allegation against the petitioners is that on 18.08.2015 they abducted the daughter of the complainant Zainab Bibi for illicit intercourse. It has been noticed that although the petitioners are named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of 18 days in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. The complainant has nominated seven persons in the FIR but during investigation five perso ns were found innocent by the Investigating Officer. It has also been noticed by this Court that the alleged abductee Mst. Robina Parveen has contracted Nikah with the petitioner Qadeer on 22.08.2015 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, Pind Dadan Khan District Jhelum on 21.08.2015 and also recorded her statement that she has not been abducted by anybody rather she want to contract marriage with petitioner Qadeer with her free will and consent. It is common practice in our society that parents of the girl usually got register FIR against the boy and his family members due to the grudge that their daughter had contracted love marriage and the girl/alleged abductee also resile from her earlier statement/version. Nothing has been recovered from petitioners during investigation. Admittedly the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. They are behind the bars since their arrest. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioners are no more required for further investigation . Their further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. The alleged abductee has filed a suit for jactitation of marriage against the petitioner Muhammad Qadeer which is pending adjud ication before the court of learned Judge Family Court, Pakpattan which is a proper forum to decide such matters. Reliance in this regard is placed on PLD 1984 SC 95 .
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail after arrest subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.