LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has granted post-arrest bail to a man nominated in a case of alleged rape of a minor girl, holding that a person cannot be kept in jail solely on the basis of the gravity of an allegation.
Justice Ghulam Sarwar Nahang accepted the post-arrest bail petition of the accused, Aun Abbas, and issued a detailed written judgment after the conclusion of arguments by both sides.
According to the judgment, a case was registered against the accused by police in Okara in 2024, in which he was alleged to have raped a 12-year-old girl at gunpoint. The case was registered at the Gogera police station in Okara district.
The accused approached the Lahore High Court for post-arrest bail. In his petition it was contended that he had been nominated in the case on the strength of the complainant’s statement, and that the trial court had not correctly examined the facts of the case.
The court held in its judgment that in light of the medical and forensic reports, the case calls for further inquiry.
The judgment stated that on the basis of the forensic report, the lady doctor gave a final opinion that there was no evidence of the alleged rape, while the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency also found no semen material of the accused.
The court also noted in the judgment that no marks of violence or scratching were found on the body of the girl.
The court raised questions over the medical examination of the girl being conducted seven days after the incident, and also noted that police had not recorded the statement of the complainant party under Section 164.
The judgment noted that the medical report did not fix a date. The court clarified that the case was not being dismissed merely on the basis of delay in the medical examination, but that the delay in examination had created doubts in the evidence of the case.
The judgment stated that the fundamental responsibility of proving an allegation rests on the prosecution at every stage, and that every accused is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until guilt is proved.
The court held that the mere gravity of an allegation cannot be the sole ground for refusing bail.
The Lahore High Court held that the final decision in the case will be made by the trial court, and that at the present stage the court is only examining the question of bail.
The court granted bail to the accused Aun Abbas against surety bonds and ordered his release upon submission of the bonds. The court directed the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and merit, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.
The order arrives as the province tightens child protection measures on other fronts, including stricter rules for nikah registrars.
Under Pakistan’s bail jurisprudence, an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment ordinarily falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, meaning bail is the exception rather than the rule. The exception applies where the material on record raises a question of “further inquiry” — that is, where the prosecution case is not, at the pre-trial stage, supported by evidence connecting the accused with the offence in a manner that is free from reasonable doubt.
Courts have consistently held that a grant of bail is a tentative assessment and has no bearing on the ultimate question of guilt or innocence, which is determined only after the recording of evidence at trial. That is why the High Court expressly directed the trial court not to be influenced by its observations.
The order also functions as a criticism of investigation practice. Two of the deficiencies identified — a seven-day delay in the medico-legal examination and the failure to record the survivor’s statement under Section 164 before a magistrate — are recurring features of sexual violence cases in Punjab, and both directly weaken prosecution outcomes.
Prompt medico-legal examination preserves biological and physical evidence that degrades rapidly with time, while the Section 164 statement records the survivor’s account before a judicial officer at an early stage, insulating it from later claims of coaching or retraction. Where both steps are delayed or omitted, the prosecution is left dependent on oral testimony alone.
Leave a Reply