MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Yasin, who was charged under Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly committing Zina-bil-Jabr. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and relied on negative DNA and chemical examiner reports to support his innocence. Conversely, the complainant opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's previous abscondance and the victim's consistent statement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence and his conduct. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the victim's statement and medical evidence regarding the torn hymen provided sufficient prima facie material to connect the accused to the crime. The Court further held that at the bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence, such as DNA reports, is not required. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is involved in a heinous offence and has a history of abscondance, bail may be refused if prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence, such as DNA reports, required at the bail stage?
- Does a history of abscondance disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to a heinous offence?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.168 of 2005 registered at Police Station City Saddar District Bhakkar under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 with the allegation that he committed Zina-bil-Jabr with Mst. Bashiran, the victim girl.
2. The pre-arrest bail of the petitioner had already been dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 18-8-2005 and he was taken into custody by the police. He applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar who declined the same through order, dated 21-10-2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence regarding commission of Zina with the victim girl and that the petitioner has been involved in this case malafidely due to political rivalry in the area; that D.N.A. test report of the petitioner is in negative and the swabs were not found by the Chemical Examiner stained with semen; that no useful purposes would be served in detaining the petitioner in jail indefinitely as there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial of case.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner, contending that F.I.R. had been registered on 9-6-2005 and the petitioner is an absconder and he did not join the investigation; that he was arrested on 18-8-2005 when his pre-arrest bail was dismissed by this Court and he managed to get the Chemical Examiner and D.N.A. reports in his favour during the period of his abscondance.
5. I have heard both sides and perused record.
6. The victim girl had supported the prosecution story and the P.Ws. mentioned in the F.I.R. have also corroborated the same in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has. been involved in the case due to political rivalry or party faction is concerned, the answer would be that even in a rotten society no person puts at stake her family honour and there is no evidence on record to establish the defence of petitioner that there was direct enmity between him and the complainant.
7. The Lady Doctor in her report had opined that hymen of the victim is freshly torn, bleeding presently. Prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
8. As regards, the report of D.N.A. test and the swabs are concerned, it requires deeper appreciation by the Court and it is settled proposition of law by the apex Court of the country that at bail stage the Court has merely to examine it to see whether prima facie the evidence was sufficient to connect the accused with the crime as laid down in cases of Tanvir Ahmad v. Muhammad Sadiq PLD 1994 SC 88,; Shah Zaman v. State PLD 1994 SC 65 and Faqir Hussain v. Asad Ali Khan 2003 PCr. LJ 518.
9. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner is involved in a .heinous offence which is covered within the prohibition as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. and the other is that the petitioner had been absconded in the past, hence, not entitled for any concession. Consequently, this bail petition having no force is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-252/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.