The State vs Zahid and 3 others
This is a criminal petition filed by the State under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of a bail order granted to the respondents by the Sessions Court. The core legal question revolves around whether the offense under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is attracted on the facts alleged, making the offense non-bailable. The court held that to attract Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, two conditions must co-exist: the stripping of clothes and the exposure of the victim to public view. Since the removal of a Chaddar from the head did not fulfill the statutory requirements and other charged sections were bailable, the bail was rightly granted. The petition for bail cancellation was accordingly dismissed.
- What conditions must be fulfilled to attract the provisions of Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the removal of a Chaddar from the head of a victim alone constitute an offense under Section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can bail be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the offenses involved are bailable in nature?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ALI BAIG, J.---- Through the instant application filed under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, the petitioner/State has sought cancellation of bail order dated 21-04-2020 passed by the learned vacation Sessions judge Gilgit.
2. Briefly allegations against the accused /respondents as disclosed in the FIR are that the accused/respondents have slapped the sister of complainant namely Khurshida on 11-04-2020 and by using abusive language against her the accused/respondents have also removed Chaddar of the victim from her head.
3. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner/State contended that the impugned order passed by the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts on the record of this case as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Dy.A.G. further contended that the learned vacation Sessions Judg e Gilgit has passed the impugned order unheard as the D.P.P has not advanced his arguments before the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit.
4. I have heard the learned Dy .A.G. and perused the record thoroughly .
5. Admittedly , Sections 337-A and 504, P.P.C. are bailable as far as Section 354-A, P.P.C., is concerned the allegations contained in the FIR lodged at the behest of complainant prima facie does not attract the provisions of Section 354-A, P .P.C.
6. Plain reading of aforesaid provisions would reveal that to attract the said provisions of this section, two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly , there should be striping of clothes and secondly the victim in that condition be exposed to the public view. To attract the provisions of this Sher Zaman v. The State 2007 YLR 3160 section both the said conditions must co-exist. In the instant case according to the complainant the accused/petitioners removed the Chaddar from the head of the victim and secondly the next pre-c ondition from the application of Section 354-A, P.P.C. regarding exposure of the victim to the public at large prima facie is also missing. Thus Section 354-A, P.P.C. does not attract to the case in hand. Hence the learned vacation Sessions Judge Gilgit has rightly granted bail to the accused/petitioners as remaining sections i.e. sections 337 and 504/34, P.P.C. are bailable.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed in limine.
8. Petition dismissed accordingly . File.