MUHAMMAD UMER and another vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Umer and Qamar Abbas, who were accused in an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of the complainant's niece. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence presented. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had been sexually assaulting the victim for several months, had taken nude photographs, and had blackmailed her. The victim's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 corroborated these allegations. The Court observed that sufficient incriminating material existed to connect the petitioners to the crime, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the offence was heinous and sensational, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that such crimes are offences against society and the State. The Court reiterated the principle that bail proceedings require only a tentative assessment of evidence and that deeper appreciation is impermissible at this stage.
- Whether the allegation of committing rape and blackmailing the victim constitutes sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the grant of bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible during the consideration of a post-arrest bail petition?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Umer and Qamar Abbas, petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No, 220 dated 22.06.2015 offence under Section 376, PPC registered at Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. Precisely the prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that on 16.06.2015, Qamar Abbas petitioner committed rape with Mst. Sakina maternal niece of the complainant, who told that both the petitioners have been committing rape with her for the last about 6/7 months and also took her nude photographs.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been observed as follows:-- a) The petitioners are nominated in the FIR with specific role that they have been committing rape with the victim for the last about 6/7 months. They also took nude photographs of the victim and on the basis thereof, they have been blackmailing her. b) Mst. Sakina Bibi, victim also got recorded her statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein she fully implicated the petitioners with the commission of crime. c) Learned DDPP under instructions and after perusal of record has confirmed that during the course of investigation, both the petitioners have been found fully involved as they saved the video in their mobile phones and also transferred to other people. d)
Sufficient incriminating material is available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged crime, punishment whereof does fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Code of Criminal Procedure. e) The offence committed by the petitioners was a sensational, brutal and heinous in nature, which had to be deprecated and dealt with iron hands. Such offences were not only committed against the individual rather were also considered offences against the society and the State. f) This is a petition for bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible.
4. For what has been observed above, no ground for post arrest bail is made out in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.