BABAR MASIH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Babar Masih, who was charged under Sections 363 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the findings of the police investigation. The Court observed that the investigating officer had thoroughly examined the case and declared the petitioner innocent. Furthermore, the complainant herself had exonerated the petitioner from the commission of the crime. Relying on these developments, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, directing the petitioner to furnish surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment reinforces the principle that when investigation findings and complainant statements consistently exonerate an accused, the case against them warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the police investigation declares them innocent?
- Does the exoneration of the accused by the complainant provide sufficient grounds for bail in an abduction case?
- When does a criminal case qualify for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Babar Masih son of Munawar Javed seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 163/2001 dated 27-5- 2001 under sections 363/364-A P. P . C . Registered with Police Station Liaqatabad, Lahore at the instance of Mst. Kaneez Fatima with the allegation that her minor son Aurangzeb aged 9 years was abducted by the petitioner and was subsequently found in injured condition admitted in Children Hospital. It was told that Asif along with Manzoor and Babar present petitioner had abducted the son of the complainant to commit sodomy with him.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that during the investigation, the petitioner has been found innocent and complainant herself exonerated him from the commission of crime. Therefore, he is entitled for bail.
3. ' Sajjad Mehdi, S.I. Present in Court with record states that after the investigation was entrusted to him, he thoroughly investigated the case and found the present petitioner innocent.
4. Learned counsel for the State has although opposed the bail petition but keeping in view all the circumstances of the case and result of the investigation, as the petitioner has not been involved in the commission of crime and he has been declared innocent, the complainant herself has exonerated him from the commission of crime, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry as the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.