Jamil Ahmad vs The State and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and rape under Sections 376, 365-B, and 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had previously withdrawn a bail application upon receiving a direction for the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months, a deadline that had since lapsed. The petitioner argued that the FIR was delayed, the complainant's medical examination showed no signs of violence, no DNA or semen grouping evidence existed, and the delay in trial was not attributable to him. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the conduct of the accused and the recent production of a co-accused. The Court observed that the delay in trial was not the petitioner's fault, the medical evidence was inconclusive, and the petitioner had been in custody for eight months without further investigative need. Holding that the case required further inquiry and noting the trial's slow progress, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial conclusion.
- Does the absence of physical violence marks in a medical report and lack of DNA evidence in a rape case constitute grounds for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the trial has been delayed beyond a court-ordered deadline through no fault of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they have been in judicial custody for a significant period and are no longer required for investigation?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 450, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J. -- The petitioner Jameel Ahmed seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 80/12 under Sections 376, 365-B/450, PPC registered at P.S. Liaqat Pur District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Previously, the bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the learned Trial Court had been directed to dispose of the case within three months but inspite of lapse of about four months the trial has not been concluded so far. Hence, this fresh petition for bail.
3. As per allegations contained in the F.I.R., the petitioner committed zina with the complainant who was a married lady. She was allegedly abducted from her house on 22.2.2012 and taken away in a car to some village in Alipur. Ghulam Farid and unknown persons came back after leaving her in a house in the said village, whereas the petitioner has been committing zina with her on different occasions. She was also beaten and her husband was threatened. She returned from the said village after 516 days.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Was lodged after six days of the occurrence. The complainant is a married lady who has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. Inspite of having , returned on 27.2.2012 she did not get her medical examination conducted.
She lived in her house and on 29.2.2012 she was medically examined. No marks of violence were found on her body. No DNA test or grouping of semen was conducted. Inspite of remand no weapon was recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that it was a case of further inquiry and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. The delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner so he is entitled to bail. He referred to 2011 PSC (Cr.) 60 and 1999 SCM R 2147 in support of his arguments.
5. The petition has been vehemently resisted by the learned Deputy Prosecutor. General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant maintained that delay in conclusion of the trial occurred due to the fact that co-accused was not arrested.
Now he has been produced and the trial can be concluded in a short period. The delay was caused due to the conduct of the accused persons. The charge had already been framed on 6.6.2012 and the examination-in-chief of some private witnesses was recorded. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.
7. Admittedly, the direction was given to the learned Trial Court by this Court on 9.7.2012 to conclude the trial within three months but the needful has not been done and a perusal of the order sheet shows that the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. As per allegation the complainant was subjected to rape forcibly for several days but the MLR shows that no marks of violence were found on the body of the complainant. She is a married lady and has been examined after staying at her house, on 29.2.2012 in the evening. No DNA test or semen grouping was got conducted to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. It is found to be a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up for the last about eight months. He is no more required for any further investigation. The trial is at the nascent stage and is not likely to be concluded in the near future as the co-accused has been produced recently. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Jameel Ahmed is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court shall however make all possible efforts to conclude the trial within the shortest possible period without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. The learned defence counsel shall also cooperate with the learned Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case. .