MUSARRAT BIBI vs LIAQAT ALI and another
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of committing rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail despite the existence of incriminating material. The High Court held that the trial court erred in granting bail, noting that the absence of physical marks of violence on the prosecutrix did not negate the allegations, especially given the threat of death and the prosecutrix's age of fourteen. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to provide a motive for the false implication of the prosecutrix. Furthermore, the trial court failed to consider the statements of two independent witnesses who corroborated the prosecution's version. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail, ruling that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause and that the concession of bail was not justified under the circumstances.
- Does the absence of physical marks of violence on a victim's body automatically entitle an accused to bail in a rape case?
- Is the failure of a lower court to consider corroborating witness statements a valid ground for the High Court to cancel bail?
- Can bail be denied in a case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' Mst. Musarrat Bibi, petitioner had got a case registered with Police Station Noor Kot, Tehsil Shakargarh, for an offence under section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. Dated 3-4-1989. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 3-4-1989 at about 11 a.m. The first cousin of the petitioner had come to see them. The first informant's mother sent her to the house of her paternal-uncle Mehnga to bring some money. She went to her uncle's house, who was not present there, therefore, while coming back to her house she was passing in front of the Baithak of Liaqat Ali, respondent, who caught hold of her and forcibly took her inside his Baithak. He threatened her that in case she raised noise she would be done to death, and thereafter started committing Zina with her. On the noise raised by the first informant, her parents as well as many people from the village gathered in front of the Baithak. Liaqat Ali managed to run away from the spot.
2. Liaqat Ali respondent applied for bail which came up before Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who vide his judgment, dated 17-6-1989 allowed him bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State has supported the application by submitting that the grounds on which bail was granted to the respondent were not even available. He has pointed out that, apart from the parents of the prosecutrix, two other witnesses were also cited by the prosecution. Argued that the mere fact that no marks of violence were found on the body of the prosecutrix could not be ground for releasing the respondent on bail.
' Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application submitting that no independent witness of the locality was cited by the prosecution. Argued that the doctor who examined the prosecutrix opined that she was used to sexual intercourse which would cast a grave doubt on the prosecution version, therefore, the learned Court had rightly allowed him bail.
4. I have heard counsel and perused the record. The age of the prosecutrix at the time of registration of the case was 14 years. Learned counsel for the respondent has not said a word why an unmarried girl of 14 years would involve her reputation in such like cases. No motive or was pointed out by him. I do not agree with the finding of the learned Judge granting bail to the respondent that since no marks of violence were found on the body, therefore, it was a case of further inquiry. It is first informant's own case that her life was threatened and thereafter she was raped, would be a sufficient circumstance to indicate that she could not have resisted. Apart from the first informant, the police has cited two other witnesses also, who fully supported the prosecution version, yet the learned Court while granting bail did not even discuss them. Since the offence alleged against the respondent fell within the prohibitory clause, therefore, I feel that the concession of to him was not justified.
' In these circumstances, while allowing the petition, I cancel the bail of the respondent granted to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide order, dated 17-6-1989. The respondent shall be taken into custody.
Bail cancelled.
Cited by 3 cases
- Qari Muhammad Arif vs The State through Advocate General of Azad 2021 YLR 234
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs IJAZ HUSSAIN And Another 1996 MLD 1851
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs IJAZ HUSSAIN and anothers 1996 MLD 1851