Shad Ayaz Khan vs State S — 2025 YLR 2234 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Shad Ayaz Khan VS State S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 496-A---Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a woman---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the petitioner were that he enticed away the wife of the complainant for the purpose of committing fornication---Perusal of the record revealed that the alleged abductee returned home on 22.3.2025 and recorded her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, before the Magistrate on 26.3.2025, wherein, she did not mention that she was enticed or abducted by the accused for the purpose of illicit activities---Section 496-A, PPC, criminalizes the enticement or concealment of a married woman with intent that she may have illicit intercourse---Central ingredient was not merely the abduction or unlawful confinement but the specific intent for illicit intercourse, which must be positively asserted or inferred from evidence---In the present case, although the abductee had narrated that she was taken away and detained against her will yet she had not alleged that she was taken with the intent of illicit relations, nor had she made any accusation that would attract the penal provisions of S.496-A, P.P.C---Accused was arrested by the police on 27.02.2025 and the complainant wife returned home on 22.3.2025, while her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, was recorded on 26.3.2025, with a 4-day delay---Notably, the Magistrate did not summon the accused from jail to provide him an opportunity to cross -examine abductee as required by S.164 (1A), Cr.P.C.---Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of case, such statement of the complainant's wife might not influence/ affect bail---Record did not provide information about the whereabouts of the complainant's wife from 27.02.2025 (accused's arrest) to March 22, 2025 (her return home)---Similarly, wife's statement under S.164 Cr.P.C was recorded 04 days after she returned home, but the record lacked any explanation or justification for such delay---Given the lack of information about the wife's whereabouts from 27.02.2025 to 22.03.2025, combined with the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and recording her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C, without following S.164 (1A), Cr.P.C, her statement could not be relied upon for bail decision without a plausible explanation being offered during the trial---Thus, a case of further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C, was made out in favour of petitioner---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

Shad Ayaz Khan vs State S — 2025 YLR 2234 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR