Hafiz ALLAH DITTA vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 09 dated 11.01.2019 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Okanwala Bangla, District Sahiwal, on the allegation of abducting the complainant's sister to commit zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim stated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during cross-examination that she left her house with her own consent and was not medically examined, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that inconsistent victim statements and lack of medical examination at the tentative assessment stage can constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a statement by the victim denying abduction during cross-examination bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the victim's statement contradicts the FIR?
- Is the absence of a medical examination of the victim a relevant factor for granting post-arrest bail in an abduction case?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
By means of instant petition, the petitioner Hafiz Allah Ditta has sought for his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 09, dated 11.01.2019, offence under Sections 365-B, PPC, registered with Police Station Okanwala Bangla, District Sahiwal, at the instance of Respondent No, 2/complainant..
2. Concisely , the allegation against the petitioner as contained in the crime report is that on 10.01.2019 at 8/9.00 PM, he abducted Mst. Sana Iqbal, sister of the complainant in order to commit zina with her .
3. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioner is named in the crime report as a principal accused with the allegation of abduction of her own student, however , it is straightaway observed that the abductee/victim namely Mst. Sana Iqbal got recorded her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 12.01.2019 and she was cross-examined by the accused himself.
During cross-examination she has stated that she was not abducted rather left her house with her own consent.
Even otherwise, record reveals that she was not medically examined. Such circumstances itself prima facie makes the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambi t of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation. His further detention in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
Liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. However , the culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence.
Resultantly , the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. The findings recorded above are of tentative in nature, which will not af fect merits of the case in any manner .