Rana MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL vs The STATE and another

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,432/2016 dated 22.12.2016 under sections 376, 365-B, P.P.C., Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal.

2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of four days in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima fade reflects that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused abducted Mst. Haseena Bibi, niece of the complainant and whereafter co-accused Jaffar committed rape with her. Admittedly during investigation on 22.12.2016 the alleged victim got recorded her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. in which she has not levelled allegation of rape against the present petitioner and has categorically stated that he kept on guarding the premises where she was detained. Thereafter, she got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 09.01.2017 after about 17 days in which she has levelled allegation against the present petitioner that he also committed rape with her. The two statements got recorded by the victim are at variance with each other and have created doubt in the prosecution story as far as the present petitioner is concerned. I have also carefully gone through the MLR of the victim and according to her MLR there is no mark of violence on any part of her body.

During the investigations, it has come on record that the petitioner was not found involved in the occurrence by the investigating officer and his discharge report was prepared but the same was disagreed by the learned Area Magistrate. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping in view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of prosecution to the extent of present petitioner has become a case of two versions i,e, one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court after record evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCM R 1137 (Ehsan Ullah v. The State). The petitioner is previous non- convicts and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 03.03.2017 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Report of Forensic Science Agency regarding swabs is still awaited.

Nobody can be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars, thus, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.