JALAL Alias MUHAMMAD NAWAZ And Another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by applicants Jalal alias Muhammad Nawaz and Manzoor seeking pre-trial release after the Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan rejected their bail application concerning allegations of sodomy with the victim Muhammad Moosa. The core legal question considered by the court was whether the applicants could be held liable and denied bail based solely on a medical officer's opinion when the F.I.R. and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contained no such allegations. The court held that the medical opinion alone, in the absence of corroborating statements from the victim and complainant implicating the accused, was insufficient to connect the applicants to the offence at the bail stage. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants, laying down the principle that medical evidence alone, unsupported by ocular or primary witness accounts in the record, does not furnish reasonable grounds to believe the accused are guilty of the alleged crime for the purpose of withholding bail.
- Is a medical officer's opinion sufficient to deny bail when the F.I.R. and witness statements contain no allegation of the offence?
- Whether the absence of incriminating statements in the F.I.R. and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements makes it a fit case for bail?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Khadim Hussain Solangi learned counsel for applicants/accused Jalal alias Muhammad Nawaz son of A.I Sher and Manzoor son of Sultan and Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panwhar learned A.A.- G. For the State. The learned -Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan has rejected the bail application for the reason that there is allegation of commission of sodomy by the applicants with victim Muhammad Moosa. The learned counsel for the applicants has taken me through the contents of F.I.R. That there was no allegation of commission of sodomy in the F.I.R. And the sole evidence is of the medical certificate. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panwhar has stated that there was no allegation of commission of sodomy by the applicants in the F.I.R. And in 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses including the victim. I am of the opinion that mere opinion of the medical officer that act of sodomy was committed on the victim Muhammad Moosa is not sufficient to implicate the applicants in the commission of offence because the victim and complainant have not implicated the accused persons for the said offence. In these circumstances it is a fit case for bail and consequently both the applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each on furnishing solvent surety by each applicant and execution P.R. Bond the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.