ABDUL MANAN vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

ABDUL MANAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 354, 509, 506-B, 337-A(i) & 337-B---Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, causing sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, shajjah-i-khafifah, jurh---Bail, refusal of---Accused was charged for removing the "Hijab" of daughter of the complainant with bad intention and putting his hands on her body and sexually harassing her by biting her cheek---First Information Report was registered promptly on the same day---Victim girl was examined by the Medical Officer on the same day which itself suggested that there was no chance to concoct false story or to consult someone else for falsely implicating the accused-petitioner---Accused-petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role of putting hands on the body of the girl aged about 16/17 years and put force on her for sexual abuse so also bit her on right cheek in the street while she was returning from tuition centre---Allegations made in the FIR were supported by the witnesses and the victim in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., recorded during the investigation---Victim girl was examined by the Medical officer who found the human bite mark on her right cheek and kind of weapon was also mentioned in the certificate as human teeth while duration of injury observed as fresh---No suggestion on behalf of the accused-petitioner was available that he was involved on the basis of some enmity or ill-will with the complainant party---Though in the FIR S. 377-B, P.P.C., was not added but from the contents of FIR the same was applicable--- Investigation Officer, after conducting the investigation, had added the S. 377-B, P.P.C., in the charge-sheet prepared under S. 173, Cr.P.C.---Accused-petitioner had indeed committed a most heinous offence and there could be no redemption or compensation for the victim because she would have to live with the worst scars that one could imagine---Sufficient grounds were available to believe that the accused-petitioner was connected with the commission of offence which fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C., disentitling the accused-petitioner from the concession of bail---Bail application was dismissed accordingly.

ABDUL MANAN vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 73 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ