MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs STATE, etc.
Muhammad Irfan, the petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 238 registered under Sections 365-B and 316(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, involving the alleged abduction of the victim Sana Bibi to seduce her to illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given his specific nomination as the principal offender and corroborating statements of the victim. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated with a specific role, the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supported the charge, the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the trial had commenced upon submission of the challan. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, declining to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner.
- Is an accused specifically nominated as the principal offender in an abduction case entitled to post-arrest bail when the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 support the charge?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail when the trial has already commenced?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 316(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Irfan, the petitioner seeks post arrest hail` in case FIR No, 238 dated 22.05.2015 under Sections 365-B, 316(i), PPC registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner alongwith his co-accuse abducted Sana Bibi the victim in order to seduce her to illicit inter-course.
3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record, it was observed:-
(i) That the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role;
(ii) That the version of the complainant fads support from, the statements of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And 164, Cr.P.C.:
(iii) That prima facie and for the purpose of this petition, it cannot be said that the testimony offered by the prosecution could admit of any doubt;
(iv) That the petitioner is nominated being the principal offender by the victim in her statements;
(v) That the offence catches the prohibition contained under Section 497 Cr.P.C.;
(vi) That the challan has been submitted and the trial has been commenced, thus, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner; Ref: "Aman Ullah v. The State" (PLD 2009 SC 542)
4. For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this Petition which is hereby dismissed.