FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
The present applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 37 of 2000 registered at Police Station Miro Khan under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the unexplained delay in medical examination and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the inordinate and unexplained delay of seven days in referring the victim for medical examination, coupled with the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the State offering no objection, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and prosecution delays remain unexplained, bail should ordinarily be granted, particularly when the State does not oppose the application.
- Whether unexplained delay in referring a victim for medical examination justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Do offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a general rule?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel raises no objection to the application?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No, 37 of 2000 registered with Polcie Station Miro Khan under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i) and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. Read with section 10(2), Zina Hudood Ordinance. The present applicant has moved bail application before trial Court, but without success, hence this application.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that while Mst. Khanzadi was returning to home after serving meals to her father and she was accosted by applicant and she was 'unaddressed and raised cries, thereafter, the complainant and another person were attracted and the accused made his escape good.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Advocate for the applicant has contended that the offence has taken place on 15th May. 2000 whereas the prosecutrix namely Mst. Khanzadi has been referred to Medical Officer for the examination on 22nd May, 2000 and there is delay of seven days in sending her to Medical Officer for examination which goes unexplained by the prosecution. He has further submitted that the injuries found on the person of victim at the most would be falling under sections 337-A(i), 337-B(ii) and 337-H(ii), QDO read with section 354, P.P.C. Which offences are not being covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. According to Mr. Muhammad '
4. Saleem, medical evidence is not supporting the version of the prosecutrix.
5. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has raised no objection on the ground that the victim is not being supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, he has no objection for the grant of bail to the applicant.
6. ' I have considered the arguments rendered by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record and impugned order. Admittedly the alleged offence is said to have been taken place on 15th May, 2000 whereas the victim Mst. Khanzadi has been referred to Lady Medical Officer on 22nd May, 2000, inordinate delay goes unexplained by the prosecution. As far as the injuries are concerned, the same are not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even section 354. P.P.C. Is not being covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. ' In view of the no objection raised by Mr. Muhammad lqbal Memon, learned State counsel, the present applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs, two hundred Thousand and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.