MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus State
This criminal petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was implicated in case F.I.R. No. 294 dated 12-6-2009 registered under Section 365-B and Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the initial F.I.R., the delay in reporting, and the nature of his alleged association with the main accused. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., was implicated belatedly via a supplementary statement, was a servant of the main accused against whom substantive allegations of Zina were levelled, and no recovery was to be made from him as the challan had been submitted, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of the record indicating delayed supplementary implication and lack of a direct overt act warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the initial F.I.R. and implicated through a belated supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of any direct overt act attributed to the petitioner in commission of the offence justify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the completion of investigation and submission of challan where the accused is no longer required for investigative purposes weighs in favor of granting bail?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J .---At the instance of Muhammad Ramzan son of Faiz Bakhsh, respondent No.2, case F.I.R. No.294 dated 12-6-2009 was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Muzaffarabad Multan, for an offence under section 365-B, P.P.C. and section 376, P.P.C. was also added.
2. The story narrated in the F.I.R. is that on 7-6-2009, Kiran niece of the complainant went out for preparing a photocopy of NIC when she did not return, the complainant started searching her the P.Ws. told him that they had seen the niece of the complainant going with Bilal and three unknown persons riding on a rickshaw after her return the abductee implicated the petitioner for her abduction.
3. The petitioner in the first instance applied for post arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, which was dismissed on 14-7-2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks post arrest bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case that he is not nominated in the F.I.R. Further states that the abductee has not levelled any charge of abduction or rape against the petitioner. The petitioner is servant of the main accused and has been implicated in this case due to this reason; that the investigation is complete and the petitioner is no-more required by the police for any purpose; that the petitioner is previously a non-convict. Further submits that the alleged abductee was not recovered from the petitioner. Case was got registered with unexplained delay of 5 days. Allegation of committing Zina with the abductee is attributed to Irfan.
5. On the other hand, the learned DDPP with the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant states that the case does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the petitioner facilitated the main accused for commission of the offence of Zina. The petitioner along with Irfan has been taking the abductee from one city to another and stayed with different friends/hotels.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner's name does not figure in the F.I.R. but he was later on implicated in the said F.I.R. through supplementary statement after registration of the case. The case was registered on 12-6-2009 while the occurrence is stated to happen on 7-6-2009. There is delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. Further, supplementary statement was recorded later on after registration of the F.I.R., which is belated. False implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is implicated being servant of main accused Irfan against whom allegation of commission of Zina is levelled who is not petitioner before this Court Challan of the case has been submitted and the petitioner is no more required for any investigation or recovery. The alleged abductee had reached her home. It will not fulfil any useful purpose keeping the petitioner behind the bars as punishment. No doubt, serious offence has allegedly been committed as narrated in the F.I.R. In whole story there is no role of the present petitioner for commission of the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. It is a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner is allowed post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The assessment and observations are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either side during trial of the case.
H.B.T./M-746/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAFIQURREHMAN vs THE STATE and another 2011 MLD 1756