ABDUL RAB vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 378 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of house trespass, wrongful confinement, and rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence to justify the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court observed that upon the police's arrival at the spot, the victim was fully clothed, no weapon was recovered from the petitioner at the time, and no immediate legal proceedings were initiated by the victim. Furthermore, the medical report revealed an intact hymen with no marks of violence, and the DNA report negated the commission of rape, indicating at most an attempt. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, particularly considering the petitioner's period of incarceration and that further detention would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail when medical and DNA reports contradict the main charge of rape?
- Does the absence of immediate legal proceedings by the victim at the time of the accused's apprehension at the spot affect the grant of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused has suffered a prolonged period of incarceration and is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 378, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdul Rab petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No 2182/2017 dated 15.11.2017 offence under Section 378, PPC at police station Factory Area, Lahore.
2. According to FIR, on 12.11.2017 at about 8/9:00 p.m Abdul Rab petitioner who was allegedly armed with dagger criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and forcibly confined her brothers Taha and Talha in a room. It has been alleged in the FIR that petitioner forcibly" took Liebe Ali complainant in another room where he forced her to remove her clothes at dagger point, whereupon, she removed her clothes and petitioner committed sina.bil.jbar with her, In the meanwhile, her brother Talha made call at 15, therefore, police reached at the place of occurrence and petitioner was apprehended by the police at the spot. Hence instant FIR was registered.
3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned DPP, it has been noticed that when police reached at the house of the complainant, Abdul Rab petitioner, Liebe Ali complainant/victim and her brother Talha were present in room which was bolted from outside, Police opened the door of said room and Met, Liebe, All complainant/victim was wearing clothes at that time whereas petitioner was apprehended by the police at the spot but dagger was not recovered from his possession at that time. The complainant/victim did not initiate the legal proceedings against the petitioner when he was apprehended by the police at the spot, therefore, petitioner was released by the police on the same day of occurrence. On 15.11.2017 about 3 days after the occurrence, Mst, Liaba All complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner wherein she levelled allegation of commission of sina-bil-Jabr with her against petitioner. On 14,11,2017 Met, Liaba All complainant was medically examined by the lady doctor and according to the opinion of lady doctor, her hymen was intact. No tears, laceration or abrasion was observed by the lady doctor on her (victim) private parts. The lady doctor also did not observe any mark of violence on the body of the victim, After the receipt of report of DNA test the lady doctor opined that rape was not committed but only attempt to rape was found, Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation of commission of zina-bil-Jabr with the victim against the petitioner has not been proved. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 29.11.2017 and he is behind the bars for a period of about 51/2 months and is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period.
4. For what has been discussed above, case of the petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/. (Rupees two lace only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.