GUL ZAMAN alias GULLA vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Gul Zaman alias Gulla, who was charged under sections 354-A, 354, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly outraging the modesty of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the allegations of direct nomination in the FIR and the nature of the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court determined that the lower forums had correctly exercised their discretion in refusing bail, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was innocent, and the prosecution's case was supported by sufficient prima facie evidence. The key principle laid down is that while the High Court generally respects the discretion of lower courts in bail matters, it will intervene only when necessary to secure the ends of justice, provided the petitioner fails to demonstrate circumstances justifying bail.
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with the exercise of discretion in bail matters by lower courts?
- Is an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances is a court required to grant bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Petitioner Gul Zaman alias Gulla has moved instant application for his post-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No.247, dated 12-12-2003 which stands registered against the petitioner and two others under sections 354-A/354/34, P.P.C. With Police Station, Paharpur, D.I. Khan.
2. The precise allegations against the petitioner are that he on 9-12-2003 at 1030 hours on a road near the house of Alfah Ditta in the limits of Kala Godh sharing his common intention with co- accused Qaisar and Allah Ditta outraged the modesty of Mst. Shahro Bibi (40/42) complainant. He caught hold of the complainant from her hairs and caused her fell on the ground. He also removed her 'Dedha' (loin cloth) and snatched her 'Dopatta' when she tried to cover her body with it.
Explaining the motive, it was stated that Wazir, son of the complainant was suspected of having insulted wife of the petitioner and the petitioner was on a look to take revenge.
3. Mr. Sanullah Khan Gandapur, Advocate for the petitioner raised the point of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And presence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had no hand in the commission of crime. He also contended that co-accused Allah Diwaya alias Allah Ditta has already been enlarged on bail; that there is no tangible evidence on record which could connect the petitioner with the crime and that the whole story of the prosecution is based on mala fide and concoction. On the strength of These submissions, he submitted that case of petitioner is arguable for the purpose of bail and needs further probe in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He relied on Sher Zaman and two others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 440, Mst. Abida Jabeen v. Imtiaz Ahmad and others 1997 PCr.LJ 600 Lahore and Sarfaraz alias Punnun v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 302 Lahore.
4. Malik Hamesh Gul Khan, Advocate appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Ahmad Ali Khan, Advocate for the complainant strongly opposed the bail application and maintained that the petitioner stands specifically nominated as one of the accused in the commission of crime; that a valid explanation has been offered for delay in reporting the matter to police and that petitioner's active participation in the occurrence being sufficiently spelt out, he does not deserve the benefit of bail. To substantiate the pleas, -reliance was placed on the cases reported as Allah Ditta and another v. The State 2003 MLD 1848 Lahore and Mst. Zaitoon v. Muhammad Riaz and 3 others PLD 1996 Peshawar 30.
5. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard in the light of the available material.
6. It is settled that normally High Court does not interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of bail but when interference is inevitable, it is under duty to do so in order to secure the ends of justice and to do complete and substantial justice to the parties.
7. In the instant case, I find that in view of direct nomination of the petitioner in the report for outraging modesty of the complainant and the offence being covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the orders passed by learned forums below in refusing bail to the petitioner, are neither illegal nor perverse warranting interference of this Court. The bail has been declined to the petitioner for valid and cogent reasons. The tentative assessment of the evidence would prima facie show that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the crime with which he is charged and would not be entitled to the concession of bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has not been able to successfully demonstrate the existence of circumstances justifying the grant of bail. The application fails which is hereby dismissed. Manzoor Hussain and another v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 2406, Tariq Bashir and 5 others v.
The State PLD 1995 SC 34, Mst. Taj Mahi alias Tajo v, The State 1998 MLD 2017 and Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others v. The State and another 2002 MLD 330 Peshawar.
8. Before parting with this order, I would direct that since challan in the case is complete, the same be put in Court within fifteen days and the trial Court is directed to conclude the case as expeditiously as possible not exceeding six months. ' accordingly.