Malik SHAKIR BASHIR AWAN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations, specifically the claim that the offence occurred on the same day at two geographically distant locations (Lahore and Jouharabad). The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the complainant's contradictory versions regarding the place of occurrence, coupled with an unexplained delay of over one month in reporting the incident, created serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court must tentatively assess the material to determine if the prosecution's case is tainted by mala fide or ulterior motives, particularly when the complainant's own narrative is inherently contradictory and physically impossible.
- Does the existence of two FIRs alleging the same offence at different locations on the same day create sufficient doubt to grant pre-arrest bail?
- Is an unexplained delay in reporting an offence a relevant factor for the court when considering a pre-arrest bail application?
- Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the complainant's narrative is physically impossible due to geographical distance?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Apprehending arrest at the hands of local police, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 1174 of 2018 dated 17.09.2018 registered u/S. 376, PPC at Police Station Iqbal Town, Lahore.
2. Allegation against the petitioner accor ding to the contents of FIR is that on 07.08.2018, the complainant was telephonically called by the petitioner near Technical Education Board, Iqbal Town, Lahore, from where he took her in his house and committed rape.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record transpires that initially on the application of the complainant FIR No, 318/18 dated 10.08.2018 was registered u/S. 376, PPC at Police Station City Jouharabad District Khushab in which place of occurrence was mentioned as house of present petitione r situated at Jouharabad and the occurrence was statedly happened on 07.08.2018. It is very surprising to observe that the complainant leveled allegation of committing rape against the petitioner on the same day i,e, 07.08.2018 at two different places, firstly at Lahore and secondly , at Jouharabad.
District Khushab. This aspect of the case creates a serious doubt regarding veracity of the allegation leveled by the complainant against the petitioner . Learned counsel for the complainant though vigorously argued that the first FIR No, 318/2018 lodged on 10.08.2018 at Police Station City Jouharabad was later on cancelled by the police by declaring it as false and second FIR lodged on 17.09.2018 Bearing No, 1174/2018 dated 17.09.2018 at Police Station Iqbal Town, Lahore with the same allegation against the petitioner should be presumed as true version of the complainant. The other argument of learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant is that during the course of investigation, the factum of committing rape with the complainant has been proved and in this regard report of DNA is positive.
5. In my view, the fact remains that how the petitioner can commit rape with the complainant on the same day at two different places, firstly at Lahore and then at Jouharabad, Khushab, which is more than 200 km far away from Lahore and there is no much difference in time also. The alleged occurrence took place at 07.08.2018 whereas, matter was reported to police on 17.09.2018 with a delay of one month and ten days, explanation of which has not been advanced by the complainant. Under the circumstances, it is very difficult for the Court that which version of the complainant be accepted as her true version. Even otherwise, while adjudicating upon pre-arrest bail, the Court has to see the evidence tentatively and deeper appreciation is not permissible. So, prima facie involvement of present petitioner on the basis of mala fide and ulterior motive cannot be ruled out and the guilt of petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording prosecution evidence adduced before it during trial.
6. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.