MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under allegations of abduction and Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the acquittal or discharge of co-accused during investigation, and the medical examination delay. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. for grave offences involving an unmarried girl, that a prima facie case exists within the prohibitory clause, and that charges have already been framed with trial proceedings underway. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated in a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause and trial has commenced with the framing of a charge, bail ought not to be granted lightly, especially when the delay and other factual contentions require deeper appreciation of evidence at trial.
- Whether the delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. makes the prosecution case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the fact that co-accused were declared innocent during investigation entitle the main accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted bail when the trial has commenced and charge has been framed?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Tayyaba, complainant stated before police on 22-12-2003 that on 17-12-2003 at about 3-00 p.m. she was present in her house along with her mother Mst. Kubra Bibi. She further stated that Zahida daughter of Ahmad Ali reached there in her house and took her near graveyard where Amjad, Muhammad Arshad (petitioner), Tasawar, Muhammad Aslam, Ali Ahmad and Aftab Haider were present and they boarded her in a wagon forcibly and took her to Duniapur. She mentioned that Muhammad Arshad had been committing `Zina-bil-Jabr' with her there at Duniapur and he returned her on the request of her parents and respectables on 20-12-2003. On her statement present case was registered against the petitioner and others. The petitioner was arrested on 25-12-2003. Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 5 days in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained by the prosecution. He contended that during investigation remaining accused have been declared innocent, which makes the prosecution story doubtful and that Mst. Tayyaba, complainant was not recovered from him. He further contended that according to F.I.R. complainant came back on 20-12-2003 but she was medically examined on 23-12-2003, therefore, case of petitioner is that of further inquiry and he deserves concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. that he abducted unmarried girl and committed `Zina-bil-Jabr' with her, that delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained; that there is no question of false implication of accused/petitioner; that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that charge has already been framed and now the case is fixed for 2-6-2004 for prosecution evidence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above, according to prosecution case, petitioner along with his co-accused abducted Mst. Tayyaba, complainant from her house and took her to Duniapur in a wagon. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed `Zina-bil-Jabr' with her. She is unmarried girl. The petitioner has failed to explain as to why case was registered against him. As mentioned above charge has already been framed and now the case is fixed for 2-6-2004 for prosecution evidence. In these circumstances I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner and application brought by him is accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./M-612/L Bail refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL QADOOS alias PEHLWAN vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 1921
- MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1732