2000 PLP 150 (YLR)

A case under sections 354, 337‑A‑1, 337‑Fl/34, P.P.C., was initially registered against respondent No. l Manzoor Ahmad and others at the report of Mst. Shahida Parveen. The aforesaid Manzoor Ahmad applied for pre‑arrest bail, which was dismissed by Mr. Ata Ullah Kausar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad vide his detailed order, dated 1‑4‑1999, in which he concluded that from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., section 354‑A, P.P.C., was attracted to the case and as such the respondent No. l was not entitled to pre‑arrest bail. The bail petition was accordingly dismissed. However, later on the same respondent applied for post‑arrest bail which was granted by the same Court on the ground that torn off clothes of the victim were not recovered and that during the investigation, it was found that only a scuffle had taken place between the complainant, respondent No. l and his co‑accused. As such the respondent was granted post‑arrest bail against which this petition is moved on the ground that offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C., is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such after dismissal of pre‑arrest bail on 1‑4‑1999 there was no fresh ground so as to enlarge the respondent on bail vide order, dated 9‑4‑1999. In this context it was contended that torn clothes were recovered from the respondent and the police had submitted challan of the case to the Court under section 354‑A, P.P.C., read with sections 337‑A1, 337‑F1/34, P.P.C. Finally it was contended that respondent No.1 had no case for post‑arrest bail particularly when the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

2. The learned counsel for the State has also submitted that during investigation of the police, respondent No.1 has been found guilty and challan has already been sent against him for the offence under aforesaid sections after torn clothes have been recovered on 9‑4‑1999.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 however, opposed the cancellation of bail on the ground that during investigation, at the initial stage it was found that there was only a scuffle between the complainant, the respondent No. l and his co‑accused and that the clothes of the victim were not torn of by the accused nor her private parts were exposed to the public. As such provisions under section 354‑A, P.P.C., were not attracted and the rest of the offences did not fail within the prohibitory clause and that the respondent No.1 was rightly enlarged on bail. It was, therefore, contended that bail once granted, its cancellation is a rare phenomenon. In the instant case there was allegedly no ground which would call for the cancellation of bail as it was a case of further inquiry on account of two versions coming up during investigation of the case as pointed out above i.e., that at the initial stage police had found that there was only a scuffle and no clothes were torn, but after the dismissal of pre‑arrest bail petition and due to the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad that provisions of section 354‑A, P.P.C., were attracted, the recovery of alleged clothes was made, which showed that the investigating agency had tried to improve its case in the light of observation made by the learned trial Court.

4. Lastly it was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that present F.I.R. is the outcome of enmity because the complainant and her family members were indulged in drug trafficking and since respondent No.1 had once trapped one of their customers, therefore, they turned against him and concocted this false case.

5. I have considered the foregoing facts and found that in the F.I.R., the complainant had clearly alleged that her private parts were exposed to the public after tearing off her apparel, and it is for that reason that the learned trial Court had made an observation that the case would fall within the mischief of section 354‑A, P.P.C., and the offence was punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In such a situation, the rejection of pre-arrest bail would have no ‑ distinguishing feature while considering post‑arrest bail petition particularly when the torn clothes have already been recovered by the police. In such a serious offence, there was hardly a good ground for admitting the respondent No.1 to post‑arrest bail only a few days after the rejection of his pre‑arrest bail petition by the same Court. This petition is accordingly allowed and the bail granted to respondent No.1/Manzoor Ahmad is cancelled. He is present in Court and has been taken into custody by the S.I./S.H.O., Javed Asian present in Court.

6. I have noticed during hearing of this petition that case diary, dated 9‑4‑1999 is no clearly legible. I have asked Muhammad Nazir, A.S.‑I. as to whether he had written it with its own handwriting to which he had replied in the affirmative. He was asked to write down the statement of Syed Akhtar P.W. recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., the specimen of which is placed on record as Mark A in his handwriting which was quite different than the handwriting in which this statement was written. Thereupon he disclosed that in fact the case diary was written by Ihsan Ahmad Constable attached with the police station and that he had only signed the same. Earlier to that Javed Aslam, S.‑I., had also affirmed and stated that case diary was written by Muhammad Nazir, A.S.‑I. with his own handwriting. After disclosure as aforesaid that the case diary was written by Ihsan Ahmad Constable and the subsequent writing (Mark 'A') of Muhammad Nazir, A.S.‑I. obtained in the Court, it follows that both the police officials have, been unscrupulous to make statements that the diaries were written in the hands of aforesaid Muhammad Nazir, A.S.‑I. This would call for action against them under the Police Rules. The Superintendent of Police, Hafizabad is directed to take action against Javed Aslam, S.‑I. and Muhammad Nazir, A.S.‑I., Police Station, Sadar, Hafizabad on departmental side for their misleading statements before this Court in respect of writing of case diary. Any action taken shall be intimated to this Court by 31‑7‑1999 through Deputy Registrar (J). It will also be desirable if both the police officers are transferred from their present place and posted at such a place where public dealing is not concerned. Disposed of. N.H.Q./S‑404/L Bail cancelled.