SHC dismisses bail plea in rape case

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