ZULFIQAR ALI vs STATE, etc
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged rape of his niece. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given significant evidentiary discrepancies, including a delay in lodging the FIR, a lack of medical corroboration regarding the alleged pregnancy and miscarriage, and a DNA report that failed to connect the petitioner to the crime. The Court held that these circumstances, particularly the conflict between the victim's statement and the medical evidence, warranted further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated since June 2017, had joined the investigation, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is contradictory and lacks medical corroboration, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail to an accused.
- Does a lack of seminal material in a DNA report in a rape case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when there is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and medical evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's allegations?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 246/2017 dated 03-06-2017 that was registered against him at Police Station City Phool Nagar, District Kasur, for an offence under Section 376, PPC.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the Petitioner is the real brother of the Complainant. He is issueless and adopted Complainant's daughter Zainab Bibi aged 13 years. On 31-05-2017 when Zainab Bibi came to the Complainant's house she informed him that the Petitioner had been repeatedly committing rape with her.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. It is observed that the FIR was lodged with a delay of three days and victim Zainab Bibi was medically examined after another two days. The prosecution has not furnished any explanation for these delays. The statement that the victim made before the lady doctor while giving her case history is more intriguing. She stated that she was seven years old when the Petitioner raped her many times. She told her mother about that but she ignored it. Then, three months prior to the registration of the FIR he took her again to his house and raped her. As a result, she conceived whereupon the Petitioner gave her medicine to make her miscarry on 7-5-2017. The Medico-Legal Certificate does not corroborate her allegation that she became pregnant and was made to abort. The aforesaid statement of Zainab Bibi is also in conflict with the prosecution version as set out in the FIR. Moreover, the DNA test report does not connect the Petitioner with the alleged offence as the vaginal swabs of the victim did not contain any seminal material which could be compared with the DNA profile of the Petitioner. All these circumstances call for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. to determine his guilt.
4. The Petitioner is behind the bars since 07-06-2017. He has joined the investigation and is not required by the police for any further probe. Since his trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, he cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period.
5. In view of the foregoing, I am inclined to accept this application and admit the Petitioner to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.