MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State

ORDER

ZUBDA-TUL-HUSSAIN, J.--- The allegation against the petitioner is that he clinched the private parts of his wife Mst. Nazia Bibi, the complainant, with the pliers and gave cuts on the same with a sharp-edged blade. The case F.I.R. No.126, dated 22-2-2008 was registered against him at Police Station Kot Lakhpat, District Lahore under section 337-F(ii). As the allegation was that he committed the offence at the instigation of his mother and sister, the provisions of section 34 were also added in the F.I.R. It was stated by the complainant that because of the inhuman violence she became unconscious and was taken to the General Hospital, Lahore, but instead of continuing her treatment the husband of the sister of the accused on the basis of forged signatures got her discharged from the hospital, took her back to the house of in-laws and kept her in illegal detention to avoid her contact with the parents. According to the complainant, subsequently when she found an opportunity she left the house of the accused and went to her parents.

2. The accused was hauled up in the case by the police as the complainant has substantiated her allegation with a medico-legal report. The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail claiming that he is innocent and has been involved in a false and frivolous case with ulterior motive of the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last about 8 months without any progress in the trial of the case while the offence was also not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It has further been argued that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account and as such it has become a case of further inquiry against the petitioner. The bail granted by the learned trial Court to the three co-accused has also been raised as a ground for the present petition.

3. The learned D.P.-G. has stated that the question of prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. has lost its significant in view of a barbaric and shameful offence committed by the petitioner in inhuman manner which is not only exceptional but also could not be expected of a .husband against his own wife. He also argued that it is not a simple case of causing hurt under section 337-F(ii) and section 354 later added by the police but also case of Atlaf-i-Uzw" punishable under section 336, P.P.C. falling under the prohibitory clause.

4. Despite the odd nature of the offence, the perusal of the medico-legal report does not reveal any "Altaf-i-Uzw". Hence, at the present stage, it would not be lawful to say that section 336, P.P.C. is attracted to the facts of the case. All the same, I have taken into account the relevant aspects of the case. There is no cavil with the proposition that the alleged occurrence (for the provisions mentioned in the F.I.R.) carries the liability for sentence which may extend to imprisonment of three years and as such prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. is not attracted to it.

5. It cannot be denied that in the cases which are not covered by the said prohibition the grant of bail is rule and refusal is an exception. Yet, it also cannot be disputed that conduct of the parties to a litigation and mode and manner in which the offence is committed is never irrelevant. The result of an assault may be a simple injury but the gravity would essentially be enhanced by the consequential, mental and physiological torture as well as the instant shock in addition to the physical pain. Thus, the contention of the learned D.P.-G. that the alleged offence is so inhuman, barbaric and shameful for the husband who tried to disfigure the private parts of his wife with the sharp-edged weapon on the person of victim is not devoid of force.

6. No doubt every offence carries an in-built element of some sort of cruelty and such offence/cruelty punishable under the law has to be dealt with only to the extent to which the law makes it an offence. Still I am of the view that an out and out alleged odd attitude which injures not only the sensitive parts of the female body but also causes severe mental and physiological agony to the victim in addition to the physical torture has also to be given due consideration. If an accused is simply allowed concession such as the bail, for the absence of prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. while the circumstances show the gravity of the matter not only for the personal life of an individual victim but also exposes her chastity and modesty besides the insult she and her family has to bear in the society, this may be putting premium on the offence of the accused. The grant of bail being a discretionary concession would of course not be warranted in such a situation. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. The bail petition is dismissed.

AMR/M-434/L Bail dismissed.