Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 182 of 1978, decided on 1st June, 1978.

(On appeal from the Judgment and order, dated 15‑5‑1978 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1340‑B of 1978).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497/498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.363/366/376‑‑Bail‑‑Specific allegations of abduction and rape‑‑Petitioner also suborning prosecution witnesses‑‑High Court in lawful exercise of discretion vested in it rightly refused to enlarge petitioner on bail‑‑Petition dismissed.

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, A.A.‑G. (Pb.) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st June, 1978.

‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order, dated 15th of May, 1978 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, whereby he dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1340‑B of 1978 for bail filed by the petitioner herein in a case registered against him alongwith another under section 363/366/376, P.P.C.

Briefly, the relevant facts are these. On the 12th of February, 1978 Muhammad Hayat A.S.I. saw Ghulam Akbar accused and Mst. Fazilat Begum moving about in suspicious circumstances. On interrogation Mst. Fazilat Begum disclosed that she had been seduced by Ghulam Akbar accused in the‑evening on the 9th of February, 1978 and she undertook to make her complete statement before the Court. Thereafter, the same day she was produced before a local Magistrate and her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. She stated that she was a resident of Village Said Nagar, Tehsil Hafizabad, and that about four days back she had gone out in the field to ease herself. There Kist. Naziran Machhan met her and took her along to a nearby well. At the well two boys namely, Amjad petitioner and Ghulam Akbar co‑accused emerged out of a field of sugarcane, caught hold of her and took her back into the sugarcane field where they committed rape on her during the night. Then Amjad petitioner left them promising to meet them again in Chak Chumbra. In the meantime Ghulam Akbar brought her to Chak Chumbra and kept her for the night in a hotel and again committed rape on her. At daytime when he took her to bazar she found an opportunity to inform the police officer about this occurrence. On the basis of this statement made by her the F.I.R. was registered at the Police Station Ali Pur against the two accused on the 13th of February, 1978.

On the 4th of March, 1978, the Magistrate section 30 Gujranwala observed that Mst. Fazilat Begum was more than 17 years in age and that Amjad Farooq accused was a bona fide student of the 10th class and had to appear in his annual examination. He, therefore, admitted him to bail. But on the 2nd of April, 1978, the Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala, cancelled the bail allowed to him. He observed that there were specific allegations of heinous rape levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, he was alleged to have suborned the P.Ws. and the reports to that effect were made before the local police. The police has also initiated the proceedings against him under section 107, Cr.P.C. In the face of these allegations the Court, therefore, saw no reason for allowing any indulgence to the petitioner and cancelled his bail.

In these circumstances, the petitioner applied to the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1340‑B of 1978 for bail. On the 4th of April, 1978, the petitioner was granted interim bail till the 29th of April, 1978 to enable him to appear in the Matriculation Examination. He has since taken his examination and surrendered himself on the 29th of April, 1978 as directed by the Court.

It was argued before the High Court that Mst. Fazilat Begum has made conflicting statements. In report to the police officer she did not specifically name the petitioner as one of the accused and that he was for the first time named on the same day on the 12th of February, 1978 as an accused in her statement recorded afterwards under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. But the High Court repelled this contention with the remarks that she had made her complete statement only for the first time before the Court narrating the entire story thus inculpating the petitioner as well for the heinous offences of abduction and rape committed on her Moreover, the petitioner had started suborning the prosecution witnesses and in that connection the High Court relied on the reports made against him from time to time. The police has also initiated proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, therefore, the High Court refused to interfere and dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal before us.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. It is evident that Mst. Fazilat Begum in her statement recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. on the 12th of February, 1978 has fully inculpated the petitioner and had specifically named both the accused for having abducted and committed rape on her. This statement did not conflict with her earlier report made to the police officer on the same day in which she had undertaken to make a detailed statement before the Court only and it could not, therefore, be said that in the statement she had at all exonerated the petitioner. From her X‑ray examination held on the 16th of February, 1978 it appears that she was about 17 years in age. But that circumstance alone does not entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail who is accused of the offences under section 363/366/376, P.P.C. The two Courts have also unanimously observed that the petitioner was suborning the prosecution witnesses and that the police has also initiated the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the High Court in the lawful exercise of the discretion vested in it, has refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere with the discretion thus exercised by the High Court. This petition has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner, may if so advised repeat his bail application after the statement of Mst. Fazilat Begum has been recorded at the trial. The Court may also expedite the trial of this case.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.