MUHAMMAD JAVED vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Javed, in relation to FIR No. 110 of 2018, registered under Sections 365-B, 380, and 376-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, involving allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events. The Court observed that the FIR was delayed, and the alleged abductee had previously engaged in litigation, including a harassment petition and a constitutional petition, asserting her free-will marriage to the petitioner. Furthermore, the record indicated multiple prior FIRs regarding the same individual's alleged abduction, casting significant doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by the complainant's own prior conduct and contradictory legal actions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry at the bail stage.
- Does the existence of prior litigation and contradictory statements by an alleged abductee entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution's narrative is undermined by the complainant's own previous legal actions?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the FIR is registered with delay and lacks specific allegations of sexual assault against the petitioner?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 110 of 2018, registered under Sections 365-B, 380 (376-A added later on) of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Civil Lines, Muzaf fargarh.
2. According the contents of the FIR the allegation against the petitioner in brief is that on 29.03.2018 at about "Asar Wela" he alongwith his co-accused abducted the daughter of the complainant namely Shazia Parveen on gunpoint; hence this case.
3. I. have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned law officer and have also gone through the record.
4. It has been noticed that the FIR stood registered with a delay of one day. In the FIR though the petitioner has been nominated but the role attributed to petitioner is that of abduction and that too in the joint capacity alongwith his co-accused. No specific allegation of Zina has been levelled in the FIR against the present petitioner . So, in view of this aspect of the case applicability of provisions of Section 365-B of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, leaves a serious question for determination which definitely is the job of learned trial Court.
Perusal of record appended with this petition reveals that there is a Photostat copy of Nikah Nama allegedly solemnized between present petitioner and the alleged abductee on 06.04.2017 and to get jactitation of this Nikah Nama she filed a suit against the petiti oner which is still pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Certified copy of said suit has been produced before this Court today during the course of argument.
Perusal of the record is further suggestive of the fact that the alleged abductee has also filed a harassment petition against the SHOs concerned whereby stating that she being sui-juris has contracted marriage with Muhammad Javed (petitioner) of her own free-will and consent and sought a direction that she should not be harassed by the SHOs of concerned Police Stations at the behest of certain persons of her family members.
There is yet another copy of Constitutional petition i,e, W.P. No, 5674 of 2017 filed on behalf of the above-said abductee before this Court available on the record seeking a direction against the SHO Police Stations Jampur , District Rajanpur and Bait Meer Hazar , District Muzaf fargarh.
So, keeping in view the different actions taken on behalf of Mst. Shazia Parveen, story contained in the instant FIR becomes highly doubtful.
The circumstances which are floated on the surface of the record raise a serious question as to why the alleged abductee is made available (sic) be abducted by the same person (petitioner) every time as there are three FIRs available on the record with regard to her abduction. Such state of affairs also create serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution version.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the alleged abductee has herself laid basis to bring the case against the petitioner within the purview of further inquiry under sub-sections (2) of Section 497 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
6. In view of above, this petition seeking post- arrest bail is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupee s fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.