2016 PLP 2176 (SCMR)
HAIBAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 2176 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | HAIBAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 2176 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 2176 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 2176 (SCMR) (HAIBAT KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.25817-B of 2015)
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 376(1)
FIR had been lodged with a delay of 14 days
Medico-legal certificate of the alleged victim did not depict any mark of violence on any part of her body
Chemical examiner had submitted his report in the negative in respect of the vaginal swabs of the alleged victim and the report of the D.N.A. test had been received in the negative
Perusal of the FIR showed that none of the eye-witnesses had in fact witnessed the alleged rape and it was the minor victim herself who had disclosed to them that the accused had committed rape with her
Material available on the record showed that the present case was merely a case of an attempt which had remained abortive or a case of a mere preparation
Investigating agency had already concluded that the allegation levelled against the accused was false and that upon completion of the investigation a report had already been submitted seeking cancellation of the FIR
Case against the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. Complainant in person. Asjad Javaid Ghural, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab and Abdul Sittar, Inspector for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this petition Haibat Khan petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 23.12.2015 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25817-B of 2015 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to him in case FIR No. 380 registered at Police Station Langrana, District Chiniot on 25.09.2014 in respect of an offence under section 376(1), P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and the complainant appearing in person and having gone through the record of investigation of this case with their assistance we have observed that the FIR in this case had been lodged with a delay of 14 days, the Medico-legal Certificate issued in respect of the alleged victim namely Naheed Bibi (aged about 10/11 years) did not depict any mark of violence on any part of her body, the Chemical Examiner had submitted his report in the negative in respect of the vaginal swabs of the alleged victim and the report of the D.N.A. test had been received in the negative. A perusal of the FIR shows that none of the eye-witnesses mentioned in the same had in fact witnessed the alleged rape himself and it was the minor victim herself who had disclosed to them that the petitioner had committed same highhandedness with her. In view of the above mentioned material available on the record it could well be that the case in hand was merely a case of an attempt which had remained abortive or a case of a mere preparation. It is not disputed that the investigating agency has already concluded that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is false and that upon completion of the investigation a report has already been submitted seeking cancellation of the FIR. For all these reasons we have found the case against the petitioner to be a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, consequently, Haibat Khan petitioner is admitted to bail in the above mentioned criminal case subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. MWA/H-7/SC Bail granted.