livelawpk.com - The Absence of Physical Resistance or Marks of Trauma ---

The Absence of Physical Resistance or Marks of Trauma does not imply consent --- Lahore High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail in High-Profile Rape Case

4 days, 18 hours
43

The Absence of Physical Resistance or Marks of Trauma does not imply consent --- Lahore High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail in High-Profile Rape Case

Islamabad 03-01-2025: The Lahore High Court has dismissed the pre-arrest bail application of Zain Tariq, accused of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), in connection with [FIR No. 1546/2024]. The judgment, delivered by Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh, underscored the gravity of the allegations and the absence of exceptional circumstances warranting pre-arrest relief.

The complainant alleged that Zain Tariq, a fabric shop owner in Faisalabad, raped her under the pretext of a business meeting. She claimed that Tariq, with the help of an accomplice, threatened her with a pistol, took objectionable videos, and used them to intimidate her. Medical and forensic evidence supported the occurrence of sexual intercourse on the said date.

Barrister Momin Malik argued that the case involved fornication (Section 496-B PPC) rather than rape and highlighted procedural lapses, including discrepancies in the complainant’s FIR and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further contended that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent.

The Deputy Prosecutor General and the complainant’s counsel refuted the Petitioner’s claims, asserting that the allegations were specific, corroborated by medical evidence, and substantiated by forensic reports.

Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh distinguished between rape (a non-consensual act under Section 375 PPC) and fornication (a consensual act under Section 496-B PPC). The Court noted that coercion, threats, or incapacity render any consent invalid.

The Court emphasized that the prosecution initially bears the burden of proving the absence of consent, which shifts to the accused to present credible evidence of consent or raise reasonable doubt.

The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy granted only when the FIR is proven to have been filed with mala fide intent. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances in this case.

The Court referred to Muhammad Ashraf Vs. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 1351) to explain that threats, coercion, or incapacity invalidate consent.

Citing Muhammad Imran Vs. The State (2024), the Court emphasized that the absence of physical resistance or marks of trauma does not imply consent.

The Lahore High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, highlighting that the seriousness of the allegations and the supporting evidence warranted a trial to scrutinize the facts. Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh stated that procedural discrepancies and evidence variances are matters for the trial Court, not grounds for pre-arrest bail.