Habibullah Bhungar vs Khuwaja Khairuddin Dero
This criminal bail application arises from a case where the applicant was charged with rape. Following the refusal of post-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting innocence and false implication. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the merits of the case and the complainant's subsequent stance. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a one-day delay, the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the DNA profile of the victim did not match the applicant's blood sample. Furthermore, the complainant filed an affidavit stating no objection to the bail and affirming the applicant's innocence. Relying on the principle that such circumstances warrant further inquiry, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety, thereby resolving the matter in favor of the applicant.
- Whether the absence of a DNA match between the victim and the accused constitutes grounds for further inquiry in a rape case?
- Does a complainant's affidavit stating no objection to bail and asserting the accused's innocence provide valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can a delay in lodging an FIR, combined with contradictory medical evidence, entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IRSHAD ALI SHAH - J;- It is alleged by the prosecution that the applicant with rest of the culprits, subjecte d PW Altaf Hussain to rape, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 497 Cr .PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and the medical and DNA profile are not suggesting the commission of rape with the victim, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry .
4. Learned D.P.G. for the State and learn ed counsel for the complainant have recorded no objection to release of the applicant on bail. By stating so, they caused filing of af fidavit of complainant Roshan Ali to such ef fect.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day. The medical certificate is not supporting the allegation of rape with the victim. The DNA profile of the victim is not matchin g with the blood sample of the applicant. The complainant now by filing his affidavit has recorded no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by stating therein that he is innocent. In these circumstances, a case for release of the applicant on bail on point of further enquiry obviously is made out.
7. In case of Muhammad Najeeb Vs. The State (2009 SCMR 448), it has been held by the Honourable Apex court that; "Though initially petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. by the complainant as an accused but later on through affidavit he stated that he is satisfied with regard to the innocence of the petitioner and does not want to proceed with the matter . This aspect of the matte r has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below . We without touching the merits of the case are of the view that case of petitioner is of further inquiry ."
8. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum Rs.50,000/- and P.R bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. The instant criminal bail application is disposed of accordingly .