Rape and kidnapping bails granted by Supreme Court .
 |
| Rape and kidnapping bails granted by Supreme Court . |
اغوا اور ریپ کی ضمانتیں قبول کرنے کی وجہ فیملی کیسز زیر التوا تھے اور میڈیکل نہیں کروایا تھا اور بھائی بہین کے نکاح میں گواہ تھا۔
### سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان میں
**اپیل کا دائرہ اختیار**
:**
یہ فیصلہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ کی طرف سے Crl.Misc.No.45685-B/2023 اور Crl.Misc.No.52486-B/2023 میں مورخہ 18.09.2023 کے احکامات کے خلاف اپیل کی اجازت کے لیے فوجداری پٹیشنز کو حل کرتا ہے، جو کہ خارج کر دی گئی تھیں۔ درخواست گزاروں کی ضمانت کی درخواستیں
#### حقائق اور پس منظر
1. **ایف آئی آر کی تفصیلات:**
- FIR نمبر 1358/2023، مورخہ 06.04.2023، پولیس سٹیشن نارتھ کینٹ، لاہور میں، سلمان مشتاق، ناہید اختر (Crl.P.No.1121/2023 میں درخواست گزار)، اور دو کے ذریعہ اقراء بی بی کے اغوا کا الزام لگایا گیا ہے۔ نامعلوم افراد.
- احمر علی (Crl.P.No.1128/2023 میں درخواست گزار) کو ابتدائی طور پر ایف آئی آر میں نامزد نہیں کیا گیا تھا لیکن سیکشن 164 Cr.P.C کے تحت ریکارڈ کیے گئے اقراء بی بی کے بیان کی بنیاد پر ملوث کیا گیا تھا۔
2. **درخواست گزاروں کے دلائل:**
- مبینہ مغوی، اقرا بی بی، قانونی طور پر بالغ تھی اور اس نے 05.04.2023 کو اپنی مرضی سے سلمان مشتاق سے شادی کی، نکاح کا باقاعدہ اندراج کروایا۔
- دعویٰ ہے کہ ایف آئی آر بلیک میل کرنے اور بھتہ وصول کرنے کے ارادے سے درج کی گئی تھی۔
- نوٹ کیا کہ مبینہ شکار کا کوئی طبی معائنہ نہیں کیا گیا، جو کہ طریقہ کار کے اصولوں کی خلاف ورزی تھی۔
**ریاست کے دلائل:**
- شادی اور ازدواجی حقوق کی بحالی سے متعلق جاری خاندانی سوٹ۔
- احمر علی کے ملوث ہونے اور مبینہ اغوا یا زیادتی کی اصل نوعیت زیر تفتیش ہے۔
#### عدالت کے نتائج اور فیصلہ
4. **شواہد کی تشخیص:**
- اقراء بی بی اور سلمان مشتاق کا نکاح رجسٹرڈ، بھائی احمر علی کے ملوث ہونے کی مزید تفتیش کی ضرورت ہے۔
- عصمت دری کا الزام لگانے والے کیس میں طبی معائنے کی عدم موجودگی کو طریقہ کار کی غلطی کے طور پر اجاگر کیا گیا تھا۔
5. **ضمانت پر غور:**
- عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ قبل از گرفتاری اور بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت کے تحفظات میں یہ شامل ہے کہ آیا گرفتاری ضروری ہے اور کیا استغاثہ کا مقدمہ ملزم کو پھنسانے کی معقول بنیادوں کو ظاہر کرتا ہے۔
- الزامات کے بارے میں مزید تفتیش کی ضرورت، خاص طور پر شادی کی نوعیت اور ملزم کے ملوث ہونے کے حوالے سے متضاد شواہد کے پیش نظر۔
6. **حکم:**
- عدالت نے سلمان مشتاق کی ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری کی توثیق کرتے ہوئے اور ضامن پیش کرنے پر احمر علی کو بعد از گرفتاری ضمانت دیتے ہوئے اپیلوں کی اجازت دے دی۔
#### نتیجہ
درخواست گزاروں کی ضمانت شواہد کی ابتدائی جانچ اور تفتیش میں طریقہ کار کی خامیوں کی بنیاد پر دی گئی۔ درخواست دہندگان کو تفتیش میں شامل ہونے اور عدالتی سماعتوں میں شرکت کرنے کی ضرورت ہے، اس سمجھ کے ساتھ کہ یہ نتائج عارضی ہیں اور مزید کارروائی کی بنیاد پر تبدیلی کے تابع ہیں۔
**ججز:**
- **جمال خان مندوخیل، جے.**
- **محمد علی مظہر، جے.**
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
CRIMINAL PETITIONS NO. 1121 & 1128 OF 2023
(On appeal from the Orders dated 18.09.2023 passed by the
Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl.Misc.No.45685-B &
Crl.Misc.No.52486-B/2023)
Salman Mushtaq and another (for pre-arrest bail) (In Crl.P.No.1121/2023)
Ahmar Ali
(for post-arrest bail) (In Crl.P.No.1128/2023)
…Petitioners
VERSUS
The State through PG Punjab and another …Respondents
(In both cases)
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, ASC
Salman Mushtaq (in-person)
Naheed Akhtar (in-person)
For the State:
Mr. Irfan Zia, DPG, Punjab
Fiaz, SI
For Complainant:
Mahmooda Bano (in-person)
Date of Hearing: 08.11.2023
JUDGMENT
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J:- This Criminal Petition for leave to appeal
is directed against the separate Orders dated 18.09.2023 passed by
the Lahore High Court (“High Court”) in Crl.Misc.No.45685-B/2023
and Crl.Misc.No.52486-B/23023 whereby the bail applications moved
by the petitioners were dismissed.
2. According to FIR No.1358/2023 dated 06.04.2023, lodged under
Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”) at Police
Station North Cantt., District Lahore, the complainant reported the
abduction of her daughter Iqra Bibi and, according to her version,
accused Salman Mushtaq and Naheed Akhtar (petitioners in Crl.P
No.1121/2023), along with two unknown persons, abducted Mst. Iqra
Bibi
for
committing
rape.
Ahmar Ali (petitioner
in
Crl.P.No.1128/2023), who is none other than the real brother of the
Crl.P.No.1121 & 1128/2023
-2-
abductee, was not nominated in the FIR, but was implicated on the
basis of the statement of the alleged abductee recorded under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.P.C”).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that, while rejecting
the bail applications of the present petitioners, the lower Courts failed
to consider that the alleged abductee is sui juris and had contracted a
marriage with the petitioner Salman Mushtaq on 05.04.2023 of her
own volition, and without any coercion. It is further submitted that the
nikah of the alleged abductee with the aforesaid petitioner was
solemnized by a Nikah Khawan and Nikah Registrar, and the nikah
nama was duly registered by the Nikah Registrar of Chak No.62-D,
Chak Baidi, Tehsil and District Pakpattan which was also registered in
NADRA and, as a consequence thereof, a Marriage Registration
Certificate was also issued by the Secretary Union Council, Chak
Baidi, District Pakpattan on 18.04.2023. It was further argued that
Ahmar Ali (petitioner in Crl.P.No.1128/2023), the real brother of the
alleged abductee, was present and also witnessed the nikah. It was
further averred that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention to
blackmail the petitioners and extort money from them. It was further
contended that the Courts below failed to consider the fact that there
was no medical report/certificate of the alleged victim; on the contrary,
the petitioner, Salman Mushtaq had filed a suit for restitution of
conjugal rights against the alleged abductee before the Family Court
and, vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2023, his suit was
decreed, whereas Iqra Bibi has also filed a suit for jactitation of
marriage which is pending adjudication. It was further contended that
during the investigation, the co-accused Parvaiz Akhtar, Sanwal and
Saima have been found to be innocent by the Investigating Officer.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab (“DPG”) argued that
the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed and the suit filed
by the alleged abductee for jactitation of marriage is already pending.
He further argued that at this stage, as the family suit is still pending,
it cannot be ascertained whether it was a case of forceful marriage or
rape as alleged by the abductee. He further argued that it is to be seen
by the Trial Court whether the real brother, Ahmar Ali, who was also
witness to the nikah, was really involved in the abduction.
Crl.P.No.1121 & 1128/2023
-3-
5. Heard the arguments. According to the prosecution case, the victim,
Iqra Bibi, was abducted. However, according to the petitioners, Iqra
Bibi, being sui juris, contracted a marriage with the accused Salman
Mushtaq of her own free will and volition, and the marriage was duly
registered. One of the petitioners, Ahmar Ali, who is now seeking postarrest bail, is the real brother of the abductee. It is also a matter of
record that Salman Mushtaq filed a suit for restitution of conjugal
rights before the Family Court which was decreed in his favour,
whereas the alleged abductee has also filed a suit for jactitation of
marriage. Both the lower Courts rejected the bail petition without
adverting to the family suits filed for the restitution of conjugal rights
and the jactitation of marriage. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
observed that it was unlikely that a real mother would lodge a false FIR
against her own son for the abduction of his sister. Quite the reverse,
it is also a matter of further inquiry to ascertain whether the alleged
abductee’s real brother was in actuality involved in the abduction and
whether he aided or facilitated the commission of the heinous crime of
rape against his real sister. Even in the suit for jactitation of marriage,
the alleged abductee admitted that the marriage was solemnized, but
under fear and threat. She also prayed to the Family Court for
declaring the nikah nama dated 05.04.2023 illegal and unlawful,
whereas the petitioners asserted that the alleged abductee contracted
the marriage of her own free will. Another important aspect we cannot
lose sight of is that, if the brother of the alleged abductee was involved
in the abduction then why was he not nominated in the FIR, and why
was he only implicated subsequently on the basis of the statement of
the alleged abductee recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C.? Moreover,
according to the petitioners counsel, no medical examination of the
alleged victim was conducted for recovering DNA (Deoxyribonucleic
acid) despite the serious allegation of rape, and this factual line of
argument was not belied by the complainant or the learned DPG.
Considering that the offence of rape was suspected and reported to the
police, the medical examination should have been conducted
immediately and without any delay in order to draw DNA samples. No
explanation was offered for this clear negligence on the part of
prosecution, which is also violation of the judgment rendered by this
Court in the case of Salman Akram Raja and another vs. Government
Crl.P.No.1121 & 1128/2023
-4-
of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others (PLJ 2013 SC 107)
wherein it was inter alia directed in paragraph 16 that in rape cases,
the administration of DNA tests and preservation of DNA evidence
should be made mandatory.
6. The paramount factors which require consideration while granting
pre-arrest bail are whether the arrest will cause humiliation and/or
unwarranted persecution or harassment to the applicant for some
ulterior motives; or that the prosecution is motivated by malice to
perpetrate irreparable injury to the reputation and liberty of the
accused. While considering the grounds agitated for enlargement on
bail, whether pre-arrest or post-arrest, the atrociousness, viciousness
and/or gravity of the offence are not, by themselves, sufficient for the
rejection of bail where the nature of the evidence produced in support
of the indictment creates some doubt as to the veracity of the
prosecution case. Therefore, where, on a tentative assessment, there is
no reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the
offence, and the prosecution case appears to require further inquiry,
then in such circumstances the benefit of bail may not be withheld as
a punishment to the accused. The Court must dwell on all
interconnected rudiments, including the gravity of the offence and the
degree of involvement of the applicant/accused for bail in the
commission of offence, together with the likelihood of absconding or
repeating the offence and/or obstructing or hindering the course of
justice, or any reasonable apprehension of extending threats to the
complainant or witnesses or winning over the prosecution witnesses.
7. The doctrine of ‘further inquiry’ refers to a notional and exploratory
assessment that may create doubt regarding the involvement of the
accused in the crime. The expression "reasonable grounds" as
contained under Section 497, Cr.P.C., obligates the prosecution to
unveil sufficient material or evidence to divulge that the accused has
committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section
497, Cr.P.C. However, for seeking the concession of bail, the accused
person has to show that the evidence collected against him during the
investigation gives rise to clear-headed suspicions regarding his
involvement. While deciding bail applications, it is the elementary duty
of the courts to apply a judicious mind tentatively to reach a just and
proper conclusion on whether reasonable grounds are made out to
Crl.P.No.1121 & 1128/2023
-5-
enlarge the accused on bail. The axiom ‘reasonable grounds’ connotes
and associates those grounds that are legally acceptable and based on
reasons that attract the judicial mind, as opposed to being
imaginative, fallacious and/or presumptuous. In the aforesaid
situation, the possibility of mala fide intention in lodging the FIR
cannot be ruled out, and, at this stage, there are no reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused are involved; rather, there are
sufficient grounds for further inquiry to prove the guilt of the accused
persons.
8. These Criminal Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into
appeals and allowed vide our short order dated 08.11.2023, whereby
the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide Order
dated 12.10.2023 in Criminal Petition No. 1121/2023 was confirmed
on the same terms, while the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.
1128/2023 was also granted post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing
surety bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
9. Above are the reasons assigned in support of our short order. The
petitioners shall join the investigation and regularly appear before the
Trial Court, failing which the complainant may move an application for
cancellation of bail in the trial Court. The findings recorded herein
above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either
party.
Judge
Judge