IRFAN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of attempting to commit sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, primarily because the offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 had been deleted, leaving only offences that did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner had previously lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant alleging sodomy, raising the possibility of a false case being registered against the petitioner. The court emphasized that the petitioner's case was open to further inquiry, particularly given the age disparity and the prior complaint lodged by the petitioner. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond.
- Does an offence under sections 377/511/292 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the prior registration of a cross-case by the accused against the complainant constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 292, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 114, dated 16-10-2004 under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 377/511/292, P.P C. registered at Police Station Mankera District Bhakkar.
2. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to commit sodomy with the victim of this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State has been heard.
4. The learned counsel for the State informed that offence under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII or 1979 has been deleted. The only offence remains against the petitioner under sections 377/511/292, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is of an attempt to commit sodomy. Case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. The petitioner is sufficiently younger in age than the victim. The petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. against the victim/complainant of this case and others in the occurrence vide F.I.R. No. 115, dated 18-10-2004. In it he complains of commission of' sodomy, committed with him on 10-10-2004. Possibility of securing registration of false case against the petitioner cannot be excluded at this stage, on account of petitioner's lodging report before the police station of the occurrence much prior to time, against the complainant. The petitioner is of lesser age as compared to that of . the complainant of this case. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, open to further inquiry on this count also.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./I-104/L Bail granted.