FARHAN SHAH Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Farhan Shah, who was charged in F.I.R. No. 52 of 2004 for the alleged abduction of Mst. Rozina. The core legal question was whether, given the evidence available during the investigation, the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The investigation revealed that the alleged abductee, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, explicitly denied being abducted, stating she had left her home of her own volition to visit a relative and that the F.I.R. was false. The Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the applicant's involvement remained a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court established the principle that where the alleged victim denies the occurrence of the offence in a judicial statement, the case against the accused becomes one of further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does a statement by an alleged abductee denying the abduction in a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution concedes that the involvement of the accused is a matter of further inquiry?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. As per allegations made in F.I.R. No.52 of 2004, lodged with Police Station Dadu on 9-4-2004 at 18-30 hours on 28th March, 2004 at about 5-00 hours applicant Farhan armed with pistol in company of co- accused Jameel armed with revolver and co-accused Zulfiqar entered into the house of the complainant and abducted Mst. Rozina alias Sapna a sister of complainant.
2. During the course of investigation the above-named abductee wasp produced before II-Judicial Magistrate, Dadu, where her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded. In the said statement she stated that on 27th March. 2004, she had gone to Karachi to see her maternal-aunt' Mst. Sakina and that she was neither abducted nor she was subjected to sexual intercourse by applicant Farhan and that she had gone out from her house of her own will. She further stated that her brother has lodged a false F.I.R.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has stated his no objection to the grant of bail while stating that it is a matter of further inquiry whether applicant is involved in the commission of the offence as is alleged against him.
4. In the above circumstances I see great force in the submissions of learned Assistant Advocate-General. Applicant is therefore, grated bail. He shall be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court:
5. H.B.T./F-13/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ROSHAN LAL vs THE STATE and another 2005 MLD 1339