Author: Abid Hussain

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has dismissed the application of an accused seeking pre-arrest bail in a rape case and said that such concession could not be granted unless the court was satisfied that intended arrest was being actuated by mala fide intention on the part of complainant party or police.

The SHC also observed that as per record, the complainant/victim was divorced by her previous husband and being poor she used to purchase grocery items on part-payment from the applicant, who was a shopkeeper.

Subsequently, the applicant started to exploit her poverty and raped her and now she was two months pregnant as such sufficient evidence was available against him, it added.

A case was lodged against the applicant earlier this year for allegedly raping the complainant within the limits of Zaman Town police station.

The accused approached the SHC as a sessions court had dismissed his pre-arrest bail application in March.

After hearing both sides, a single-judge bench of the SHC headed by Justice Amjad Ali Sahito turned down the bail application and resultantly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on March 18 was also recalled.

The lawyer for applicant argued that the accused had been framed in the case as he was a shopkeeper and used to give grocery items to the complainant free of cost as she was below the poverty line.

The counsel submitted that when the applicant refused to give her grocery, she lodged a false FIR against him and otherwise he had not committed any such offence while the FIR was also registered after a delay of three months.

He also contended that there was no medical evidence nor DNA had been conducted while no independent witness had been cited and pleaded for confirmation of interim bail.

On the other hand, an additional prosecutor general vehemently opposed confirmation of interim bail on the ground that the complainant was two-month pregnant, claiming the applicant for committing rape with her and the solitary statement of the victim was sufficient ground to connect the applicant with the commission of offence.

The bench in it order said that as per record, the complainant was divorced and being a poor lady, she used to purchase grocery items on part-payment from the applicant who started to exploit her poverty and subjected her to rape.

“The offence in which the applicant has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and more than 25 years. The sufficient material is available on record to connect the applicant. At bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be made. No malafide or ill-will or enmity has been pleaded by the applicant/accused, which could be the ground for his false implication in this case”, it added.

The bench also noted that the concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the court was satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person’s assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala-fide intent on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a word about this crucial aspect of the matter was found as no mala-fide claim was made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant/accused had been implicated in the case falsely.

“In addition to the above, I would like to mention that grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction; it is a diversion of the usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; protection to the innocent being hounded on trump up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore, an applicant seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide, it is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of the investigation”, it concluded.

Source: Dawn

RAWALPINDI: A girl was raped after being lured on the pretense of an employment opportunity within the limits of Race Course police station.

Case details reveal that the victim had first received a call from an unknown number on May 26. The caller, who introduced himself as Chenwaze, said to her that he had come to know of her joblessness, and he promised her that he would get her a job. Chenwaze remained in touch with her for eight consecutive days.

The victim reported that one particular day, Chenwaze told her that he had reached Rawalpindi and that he had been waiting for her at Dhok Syedan Chowk. He demanded that she immediately come meet him. To which she responded that, at that time, she was home alone, and assured him that she would come meet him with her mother as soon as she returned home. Chenwaze then probed her for her home address before ending the call.

After some time, the victim heard a knock on the door of her house. As soon as she opened the door, she found herself face to face with an unknown person who introduced himself as Chenwaze and proceeded to enter her home by force. He locked the door from the inside and forced himself upon the victim, raping her at gunpoint.

In another incident of rape, a girl was raped by a man named Arshad, alias, Achho. The victim’s mother filed a case with the Saddar Baruni police station. She reported that the incident happened in her absence, when she was gone away from home for work with her two daughters. She had left her other daughter and son in the house.

The man named Accho, who works in an instalment shop entered into the house and assualted the daughter. Hearing the commotion, the son went to the nearby tailor’s shop and informed him of the situation. The police have registered a case of rape against the accused and started investigating.

Source: Express Tribune

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed the bail application of a man in a rape case and recalled his pre-arrest bail order. Mohammad Tauseef was booked by the Zaman Town police over rape of a woman and his bail plea was earlier dismissed by the sessions court.

The applicant’s counsel informed the SHC that his client was a shopkeeper and was falsely implicated by the complainant in the case. He submitted that the applicant used to give grocery items to the complainant free of charge as she was below the poverty line, however, when the applicant refused to give her the same, she lodged a false rape FIR against him.

He submitted that the FIR was registered after a delay of about three months for which no plausible explanation had been given. The counsel added that the complainant had also stated that she had given Rs200,000 to the applicant, which was contrary to her other statements in which she had posed as an impoverished person.

He submitted that there was no proof of rape committed by the applicant, saying that there was no medical evidence nor had a DNA test been conducted by the investigation team. Besides, the lawyer stated, no independent witness had been cited by the prosecution in the case. He requested the high court to confirm bail of the applicant in the case.

An additional prosecutor general opposed confirmation of bail on the ground that the complainant was two-month pregnant. He claimed that the applicant had committed rape. He submitted that the solitary statement of the victim was a sufficient ground to connect the applicant with the commission of the offence.

A single bench of the SHC comprising Justice Amjad Ali Sahito after hearing the arguments observed that the record of the case reflected that the complainant was divorced by her previous husband and being a poor person, she used to purchase grocery items on part-payment from the applicant.

The high court observed that as per the prosecution, the applicant raped the woman by exploiting her poverty and now she was two-month pregnant and it was sufficient evidence against the applicant.

The SHC observed that the offence in which the applicant had been charged fell within the prohibitory clause, which was punishable with death penalty or imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and more than 25 years.

The court bench observed that sufficient material was available on record to connect the applicant with the offence and at the bail stage, only tentative assessment was to be made. The SHC observed that no mala fide or ill-will had been pleaded by the applicant, which could be the ground for his false implication in this case.

The high court observed that the concession of pre-arrest bail could not be given to an accused person unless the court felt satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person’s assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide intentions on the part of the complainant party or the local police but not a single word about this crucial aspect of the matter was found because no mala fide intention was made on the part of the complainant to believe that the applicant had been implicated in this case falsely.

The SHC observed that grant of pre-arrest bail was an extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction as it was a diversion of the usual course of law therefore an applicant seeking judicial protection was required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest was calculated to humiliate him. The high court observed that it was not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampered the course of the investigation. The high court observed that the bail case of the applicant was not made out and dismissed the bail application by recalling the pre-arrest bail of applicant.

Source:  The News