MUHAMMAD NAUMAN HANIF vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging sodomy against two minors. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary record. Upon review, the Court noted that the FIR was lodged with an eight-day delay. Furthermore, the medical reports (MLRs) showed no signs of injury, and the prosecution confirmed that the DNA report was negative. The Court held that, in light of these significant evidentiary gaps, the case against the petitioner fell within the purview of 'further enquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner had already been incarcerated for over nine months, the Court determined that continued detention would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, with the Court granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the absence of physical injury and a negative DNA report in a sodomy case constitute grounds for further enquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an eight-day delay in lodging an FIR be a factor in granting post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to justify continued incarceration during the trial phase?
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 1182 dated 10.08.2015, offence under section 377, P.P.C., registered at Police Station South Cantt. Lahore.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Law Officer and perusing the available record with their assistance, it has been noted by us that the precise allegation, as per FIR, against the petitioner is that on 10.08.2015 son and nephew of the complainant told him that their teacher (petitioner) called both the boys in his room but they ran away. It has been further alleged by both the boys that petitioner committed sodomy with them eight days prior to the registration of the FIR. We have gone through the MLRs of both the alleged victims/boys and found that, according to doctor, there was no injury sign around anal or in anal canal. During the course of arguments, it has been confirmed by the learned Additional Prosecutor General and also by the learned counsel for the complainant that the doctor has furnished his final opinion to the effect that DNA report is in the negative. Prima fade there is delay of eight days in the lodging of the FIR. In this backdrop, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further enquiry falling within the purview of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last 9-1/2 months. No useful purpose shall be served by putting IA him behind the bars for an indefinite period.
3. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed.
Consequently, petitioner Muhammad Nauman Hand is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 4 cases
- Mubeen Versus State 2025 YLR 1439
- Aqib Saleem vs State etc PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 979
- Aqib Saleem vs The State and others 2021 MLD 1332, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 238
- KASHIF KHAN Versus State 2017 YLRN 440