ASGHAR ALI alias NANNH A vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, read with Sections 377 and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an allegation of sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial given the evidentiary material available. The court observed that there was an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the First Information Report. Furthermore, the court noted that the Investigating Agency had found the petitioner innocent during successive investigations, and the medical examination of the alleged victim yielded negative results. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is weakened by a significant, unexplained delay in reporting the crime, a negative medical report, and a finding of innocence by the investigating agency, the accused is entitled to bail on the basis that the matter requires further inquiry.
- Does a finding of innocence by the investigating agency constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the medical evidence is negative in a case of alleged sodomy?
- Section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner, alongwith others, is accused of commission of offence under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979 read with sections 377 and 337-F(i), P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,209 of 1999, dated 5-4-1999 registered at Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif. The case under the said provisions of law has been registered on the information provided by the alleged victim himself. According to him he left his house at about 6-7 p.m. On 30- 3-1999 alongwith the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. And kept roaming about till 1/2 a.m. And when they reached the Abadi mentioned in the F.I.R. His companions picked him up and threw him in a truck wherein the petitioner was already present (he is described in the F.I.R. As Nanna son of Allah Ditta) and all the four persons committed sodomy. He made noise whereupon the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. Reached on scene and the accused persons fled away. A bail application filed by the petitioner was heard by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala, who dismissed the same on 24-7-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of five days in the lodging of F.I.R., for which there is no plausible explanation besides during successive investigations the petitioner has been found to be innocent by the Investigating Agency. This contention of the learned counsel is affirmed by the learned State Counsel. The medical report upon examination of the alleged victim is also negative. In this view of the matter, I find that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry. Therefore, I admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Duty/Judicial Magistrate, Arifwala.