Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHAT FAREED vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHAT FAREED VS State S. 497---Bail---Scope---Bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever required to be produced. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHAT FAREED VS State Preamble---Scope---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 was specially introduced/enacted and promulgated in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with particular purposes i.e. to provide for the care, protection, maintenance, welfare, training, education, rehabilitation and reintegration of "children at risk". Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHAT FAREED VS State Ss. 497 & 164-B---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377 & 34---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act (XIII of 2010), Preamble, Ss. 2(1)(e) & 53---Unnatural offences, otherwise than on grave provocation and common intention---Child at risk---Sexual abuse---DNA test---Bail, grant of---Delayed FIR---Contradiction in medical and ocular evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the minor son of complainant---First Information Report was lodged with a delay of about seven hours which was not explained---Except solitary statement of the complainant, no other eye-witness was cited so as to support his version---Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that semen of human origin was not detected on the articles sent to Forensic Laboratory, which went in favour of the accused---Section 164-B, Cr.P.C. had not been complied with because no samples for DNA test had been obtained either from the accused or victim despite the fact that the word "shall" was used in the said provision, making its applicability mandatory---Keeping the Preamble of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 in juxtaposition with the definition of the "child at risk" as contemplated under S. 2(1)(e) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be ascertained as to whether the alleged victim fell under the definition of "child at risk" or otherwise---Applicability of S. 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, to the case of accused was yet a begging question---Investigation in the case was complete and the accused was no more required to the prosecution for the very purpose---Case called for further inquiry under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAHAT FAREED vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ