MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State Muhammad Abdul Wadood
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of offences under sections 496-A, 496-B, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an eighteen-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the alleged abductee's voluntary appearance before a Magistrate to be sent to Darul Aman due to apprehensions of danger from her husband, and her subsequent statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disowning the F.I.R. The Lahore High Court held that a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made out in favor of the petitioner. The court established the principle that where the alleged abductee voluntarily seeks shelter and consistently disowns the prosecution story in her statements before the Magistrate and police, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. combined with the alleged abductee disowning the prosecution story make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged victim voluntarily appears before a Magistrate and is sent to Darul Aman?
- What is the evidentiary significance of statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in determining a bail application for abduction?
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 496-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, 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
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J .---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 167 of 2007, dated 2-5-2007 registered at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan, in respect of offences under sections 496-A, 496-B and 380, P.P.C.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as narrated by Hafiz Talib Hussain complainant, is that his sister Mst. Zareena Bibi had married with Mumtaz Hussain about 5/6 years ago. Out of the said wedlock one daughter and a son were born. About a month ago his (complainant) brother-in-law went to Saudi Arabia to earn bread and butter and left his wife and kids in complainant's home. Mst. Zareena Bibi developed illicit relations with one Muhammad Akram, who used to visit the house of the complainant off and on. When the complainant learnt about the same he reprimanded said Muhammad Akram and restrained him from visiting his house. It was on 13/14-4-2007, the complainant along with other family members were sleeping in his house, when he got up in the morning and found Mst. Zareena Bibi missing for whose search he along with his brother Muhammad Zafar proceeded outside whereupon Hafiz Jindwadda and Muhammad Mumtaz met them and told that about two hours ago they had seen Mst. Zareena Bibi while travelling with Muhammad Akram towards Multan on his motorcycle. On his return to home, the complainant found certain valuables in addition to an amount of Rs.5000 missing whereupon he along with the said witnesses went to the elders of Muhammad Akram and demanded for return of Mst. Zareena Bibi. The said elders after gaining some time on different pretexts flatly refused to return the hand of alleged abductee as well as stolen valuables. Hence the F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 18-days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the prosecution story is economical with truth; that the petitioner never abducted Mst. Zareena Bibi who, in fact, herself appeared before the Magistrate and requested for sending her to "Darul Aman" where she is putting up till now, therefore, the question of abduction of said Mst. Zareena Bibi by the petitioner does not arise and at least requires further inquiry.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and he is guilty of a heinous offence.
5. After hearing the arguments put forth by both the sides I have straightaway noticed that the F.I.R. in this was lodged with an inordinate delay of 18 days. A perusal of the file reveals that on the very date of alleged occurrence the. alleged abductee had 'appeared before a Judicial Magistrate with a prayer to dodge her in "Darul Aman". On an application, duly thumb-marked by the alleged abductee, her statement was recorded by the Magistrate wherein she apprehended danger to her life at the hands of her husband. After recording her statement she was sent to "Darual Aman". Admittedly uptil now she is staying at "Darual Aman". It is admitted fact that during the investigation of this case the alleged abductee had. made a statement on 8-5-2007 under section 161, Cr.P.C. whereby the contents of the F.I.R. were disowned. During the investigation her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was also recorded whereby she once again disowned the contents of the F.I.R.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that a case of further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. has been made out in favour of the petitioner, to say the least. Consequently, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bounds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) within one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-543/ Bail allowed.