Muhammad Waheed vs The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the cancellation of his post-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court, arising from a case involving an alleged assault amounting to sodomy upon a minor child within the precincts of Police Station Daraban, District D.I. Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the available material, including medical evidence confirming a bleeding rectum and seminal stains, constituted reasonable grounds bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying the High Court's order recalling the bail. The Court laid down the principle that where medical evidence strongly supports the commission of a heinous offence against a minor, the tentative assessment of evidence by the High Court in cancelling bail is unexceptionable, and freedom once granted may be recalled when the initial grant was based on a manifest error regarding the statutory prohibition.
- Whether medical evidence showing penetration constitutes reasonable grounds to bring a case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court cancel bail granted by an Additional Sessions Judge when the initial grant of bail suffers from a manifest error?
- Whether the tentative assessment of evidence by the High Court in a bail cancellation matter is open to exception when supported by medical reports?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Muhammad Waheed, petitioner herein, blamed for attempt to have carnal knowledge with Nemat Ullah, 7/8, at 12.00 hours on 2.12.2019 within the precincts of Police Station Daraban, District D.I. Khan, seeks revival of his bail granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, subsequently cancelled by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench vide impugned order dated 9.6.2020.
After the assault, the child was examined same day and the Medical Officer observed a bleeding anal orifice with abrasions on the knee joint; whitish material on the clothes were forensically opined as seminal stains.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no occasion for the learned High Court to cancel bail granted by a competent tribunal; according to him, freedom once granted is seldom re-called more so in the absence of compelling reasons, conspicuously missing in the case. Learned Law Officer has faithfully defended the impugned order; he contends that medical evidence unambiguously suggested commission of crime of sodomy as the bleeding rectum confirms penetration, sufficient to constitute the offence and, thus, the investigating officer manifestly ran into error by viewing the incident as mere attempt, therefore, observations, though tentative in nature, recorded by the High Court are not open to exception.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Certainly it is for the trial Court to finally settle petitioner's alleged culpability and the offence made thereunder on the strength of evidence, nonetheless, available material in the given circumstances constitutes "reasonable grounds" within the contemplation of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 so as to bring his case within the remit of prohibition provided thereunder and, thus, there was no occasion for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to release him on bail, an error justifiably rectified by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. On our own analysis, given extreme tender age of the child, trauma apparently endured by him, positively confirmed by medical evidence, we do not feel persuaded to subscribe to the parallel story of denial, structured upon complainant's alleged animosity based upon some previous litigation. Plea of juvenility though addressed at the bar does not find mention in the grounds taken before us though there is an oblique reference before the Court of Session albeit with no supporting material. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 2 cases
- Javed Ali Shaikh vs The State and others 2022 SHC 236
- Abdul Rasheed Shar vs Ghulam Shabbir & Ghulam Mustafa 2021 SHC 638