MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Yaqoob, who was charged with Zina-bil-Jabr in an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Methadar, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the allegations of mala fides and the delay in reporting the incident. The applicant contended that the F.I.R. was a retaliatory measure stemming from a prior case involving the abduction of the daughter of a co-accused by the complainant's son. The Court observed that the complainant was not found virgo intacta upon clinical examination, no Chemical Analyser's report was available, and the F.I.R. was lodged after a significant delay. Finding no independent evidence to corroborate the complainant's testimony and noting the existence of prior enmity between the parties, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish solvent surety.
- Can bail be granted when there is no independent evidence to corroborate the complainant's testimony in a Zina-bil-Jabr case?
- Does the existence of prior enmity and a delayed F.I.R. entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Is the absence of a Chemical Analyser's report a relevant factor for the court when considering a bail application in a sexual assault case?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J .---Applicant Muhammad Yaqoob son of Muhammad Boota has applied for bail connected by complainant Mst. Shahnaz wife of Muhammad Qasim Mehmood in Crime No.129 of 2007 registered at Police Station Methadar Karachi, which reads as under:
2. "Verbally complainant, I am residing at the above-mentioned address, on 30/31, 5 of 2007 in the night I was alone and sleeping in my house at upper room, there was no one in the house except me. Suddenly one person tied cloth on my mouth, I saw from my eyes that the person who tied cloth on my mouth was Munir Hussain son of not known, in the meanwhile Yaqoob son of not known, (2) Waqas son of Munir Hussain, (3) Rasheeda wife of Munir Hussain also reached in my room, Munir Hussain and Yaqoob son of not known committed Zina-bil-Jabr with me and my mouth was tied with cloth due to which I could not make noise, while in the meanwhile Waqas and Rasheeda took search of my room and stated that give divorce to her daughter otherwise they will kill my son, they fled away from my house, due to sudden incident I was afraid, after some while I recover my condition and saw time in the clock it was 3-00 a.m. night, I checked my articles, and found that the cupboard Rs.50,000, gold ornaments, one ring, chain, Jhumkay were missing which were stolen by Waqas and Rasheeda and Mobile Phone No.0300-7029520, due to night I was not approached to police station, now I came for report, my claim is against accused persons (1) Munir Hussain, (2) Yaqoob, who committed Zina-bil-Jabr. (3) Waqas and (4) Rasheeda, who committed theft, report heard found correct. Thumb-impression complainant."
3. Mr. Abdul Sattar Abid, learned counsel for applicant has connected the registration of the F.I.R. against the applicant is based on mala fides as a counter case of Crime No.68 of 2007 lodged by Mst. Rasheeda wife of Muneer Hussain against the son of the complainant, who had abducted the daughter of Munir Hussain later proceeded to marry her at Faisalabad, consequently, the case was registered. It is further contended that complainant Mst. Shahnaz is aged about 50 years, therefore, she was not vorgo intacta, in order to take revenge of F.I.R. No.68 of 2007 pertaining to the kidnapping and forcible Zina with Miss Shahnaz aged 16 years a delayed F.I.R. has been registered to quench the thrust of enmity, as the witnesses have been charged as accused in F.I.R. No.129 of 2007, complainant did not receive any injury on any part of her body nor independent evidence is available with the prosecution to prove and connect the applicant in the commission of charged offence. In support of above contentions reliance has been placed on the case of Mazher Hussain v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ (Lahore) 1386 and Sameer v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ (Karachi) 886.
4. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Lakho, learned A.A.-G. has opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has categorically named the applicant as one of the culprits, who committed Zina with her.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the record.
6. Mst. Shahnaz, on clinical examination was not found vorgo intacta nor Chemical Analyser's report is available on the record. Complainant was connected along with her son Asif and Irfan for abduction of Mst. Shahnaz as suggested her statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 6-6-2007. After the lapse of more than two months the applicant along with absconding co-accused Muneer Hussain, Waqas and Mst. Rasheeda wife of Muneer Hussain were connected in the commission of the crime. There is no independent evidence available except the testimony of the complainant, which has left no room to create suspicion in the mind of a prudent man on account of the past events. The benefit of doubt at the bail stage is extended in favour of the applicant in the absence of independent and cogent witnesses.
7. On account of the above discussion applicant Muhammad Yaqoob is admitted on bail subject upon furnishing solvent surety in a sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction to the trial Court.
8. Bail application stands disposed of.
9. H.B.T./M-97/K Bail granted.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUKHTAR JAVED---Applicant vs The STATE---Respondent 2017 P Cr. L J 1642
- SULTAN MURAD vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 235
- GHULAM FAREED vs THE STATE and another 2010 YLR 1188