Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Case Background
- Allegations Against the Accused
- Arguments of the Petitioner
- Arguments of the Complainant and State
- Court’s Observations
- Conclusion
- About Muhammad Amin Advocate and His Services
1. Introduction
The High Court (AJ&K) decided Criminal Revision Petition No. 164 of 2019 on 31st October 2019. Justice Ch. Khalid Yousaf heard the case. The accused, Muneeb Ikhlaq, applied for post-arrest bail.
2. Case Background
Muhammad Basharat, the complainant, filed a case against Muneeb Ikhlaq. Police registered the FIR at Police Station Khuiratta. The charges involved Sections 377, 322, and 34 of the Azad Penal Code.
3. Allegations Against the Accused
The complainant alleged that Muneeb Ikhlaq made an obscene video of his daughter, Mst. Nazish. Furthermore, he sent the memory card to her father to blackmail the family. Out of fear and shame, the girl consumed bath sweep and died. Police arrested the accused and started the investigation.
4. Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case was false. Moreover, he stated that Nazish committed suicide due to fear of her father, not blackmail. The counsel pointed out that the post-mortem occurred after a delay, which created doubts. Additionally, he said the accused was only a 16-year-old student who stayed in jail for more than five months. He emphasized that Section 377 did not apply and that the case required further inquiry. To support the bail plea, he relied on Sajjad Haider v. The State [1994 MLD 1120].
5. Arguments of the Complainant and State
On the other hand, the complainant’s counsel opposed the bail. He insisted that the accused was 21–22 years old. He explained that the accused committed a serious offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, he argued that Section 377 applied because the accused inserted his male organ into the victim’s mouth, which qualified as an unnatural offence. The State counsel fully supported the complainant and opposed the bail.
6. Court’s Observations
The Court observed that bail matters require a tentative assessment of the record. However, there should be no deep analysis of the evidence. The Court held that the accused’s attempt fell within Section 377, even if complete sodomy did not occur. Furthermore, the video clips extracted during the investigation supported the charges. The Court noted that sending obscene material to the victim’s father strongly linked the accused to the crime. Therefore, the Court found that the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. As a result, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
7. Conclusion
The High Court confirmed the trial court’s decision. It refused bail to Muneeb Ikhlaq. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that bail should not be granted in serious crimes based only on technical doubts.
8. About Muhammad Amin Advocate and His Services
Muhammad Amin Advocate is a skilled legal professional based in Peshawar. He specializes in criminal law, family law, company registration, and legal drafting. Furthermore, he offers services like drafting powers of attorney, affidavits, and contracts. He provides both online and in-person legal services across Pakistan and internationally. Clients trust him for his experience, professionalism, and prompt service. For reliable legal help, clients can visit Office No. 14, Zeb Plaza, University Road, Tahkal Payan, Peshawar, or call 0313-9708019.