MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Akbar, in connection with FIR No. 59 dated 25.03.2016, registered under Sections 365-B, 376(1), and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Jallah Arain, District Lodhran. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained two-day delay, the petitioner was not originally nominated in the FIR, and the subsequent nomination was based on an extra-judicial confession, which is considered weak evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that co-accused were declared innocent during the investigation, the alleged victim was not recovered from the petitioner, and a Nikah Nama suggested a potential marital relationship. The court concluded that these factors, combined with the absence of violence in the medical report, established sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the petitioner.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to deny bail when other evidence is weak?
- Can the existence of a Nikah Nama between the accused and the victim be considered a relevant factor in a bail application for abduction and rape charges?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Akbar, the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 59 dated 25.03.2016 under Section 365-B, 376(1), 380, PPC registered at Police Station Jallah Arain, District Lodhran.
2. Allegedly the complainant reported that nominated accused abducted S4jida Bibi sister of the complainant, so that she may be seduced to illicit inter-course.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was observed:
(i) That there was unexplained delay of about two days in lodging the FIR;
(ii) That the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR;
(iii) That the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement on 12.04.2016 and nominated the petitioner, evidentiary value whereof, shall be determined by the learned trial Court, at trial;
(iv) That supplementary statement of the complainant is based on extra-judicial confession of the petitioner, which is always considered a weak type of evidence;
(v) That co-accused of the petitioner including Mst. Rani Bibi and Amna Bibi have been declared innocent during the investigation which makes the veracity of the prosecution story as doubtful;
(vi) That neither Mst. SAjida Bibi nor Mst. Rabia Bibi were recovered from, the petitioner during the investigation;
(vii) That a Photostat copy of Nikah Nama between the petitioner and Mst. Sajida Bibi is available on the record which is supported by the statement of Iftikhar Hussain secretary Union Council No, 69 Bedian, Chak No, 35 Tehsil Pattoki, District Kasur that the said nikah nama was registered in the said union council;
(viii) That the petitioner was medically examined on 23.3.16 and no date and time of incident finds mention in the medico-legal report and that no marks of violence were observed by the medical officer during examination of the victim;
(ix) That the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and to keep him, continuously in jail would be unfair;
(x) That there are sufficient grounds calling for further probe into the guilt of the petitioner within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., thus, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in his favour.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
(R.A.)