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 an FIR alleging the abduction of a minor child for the purpose of sodomy. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the findings of the police investigation and the stance of the complainant. Upon review, the Court observed that the investigating officer had thoroughly examined the case and declared the petitioner innocent. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant herself had exonerated the petitioner from the alleged commission of the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court granted the post-arrest bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the investigation concludes the accused is innocent and the complainant exonerates them, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the police investigation declares them innocent?
- Does the exoneration of an accused by the complainant constitute sufficient grounds for a case of further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Can bail be granted in a case involving charges under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the investigation finds the accused innocent?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, ].- 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, PPC registered with Police Station, Liaqatabad, Lahore at the instance of Mst. Kameez 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 contends 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 throughly 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 the surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.