Luqman vs State etc
The petitioner Luqman sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tarkhani, Faisalabad, concerning allegations of rape and abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of ten hours in reporting the incident, discrepancies between the crime report and the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, indications of consent, a lack of corroboration from the medico-legal and forensic reports showing an intact hymen, and no recoveries from the petitioner. The court held that these factors rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that material contradictions, lack of medical corroboration, and delay in reporting warrant post-arrest bail under the statutory further inquiry provision.
- Whether unexplained delay in reporting the crime and contradictions in the victim's statements justify grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does an intact hymen and lack of medical corroboration make a rape case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether continuous indefinite detention of an accused without the prospect of a near-future trial warrants post-arrest bail?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Luqman, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R No. 341 dated 25.7.2021 under Sections 365-B, 376, PPC at Police Station Tarkhani, Faisalabad.
2. Allegedly , petitioner raped upon Saira Parveen, the victim.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that the incident was reported with unexplained delay of about ten hours. No plausible explanation was forthcoming on record for the said delay . The crime report suggests that the episode was enacted by three persons but during the investigation, the victim was examined under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein no other co-accused is nominated except the petitioner . Whereas, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. is also not in line with the crime report. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. is silent regarding her abduction by three persons, rather reflects as if she was a consenting party . The victim attribut ed forcible rape to the petitioner but the said allegation is neither corroborated by the medico legal report of the victim nor by the report of Forensic Expert. Even her hymen is shown as intact in her medical report. No recovery was effected from the petitioner .
Even during the investigation, the victim has not shown the place where she was subjected to forcible rape. The petitioner is in jail since arrest and his continuous detention for indefinite period would be unfair , in particular , when commencement/conclusion of trial in near future is not insight. All these considerations rendered the case against the petitioner one of thorough probe within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr .P.C.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the petitioner is admit ted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.