LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has granted post-arrest bail to a man accused of rape, ruling that medical and forensic evidence gathered during the investigation raised questions serious enough to warrant further inquiry rather than outright denial of bail.

Justice Ghulam Sarwar Nihung issued a ruling on a petition filed by Aon Abbas seeking bail in a case registered with Gogera Police Station, Okara under sections 376 and 376(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code.

The FIR alleged that on the intervening night of Aug 15-16 2024, the petitioner, armed with a pistol and accompanied by an unidentified co-accused, raped the complainant’s minor daughter, aged 12 to 13 years.

In his judgement, the judge acknowledged that the accusation was serious and fell within the “prohibitory clause” of Section 497 of the CrPC, which normally restricts bail in such offences. However, he held that the seriousness of an allegation alone cannot be treated as decisive at the bail stage.

The judge said the courts must make a tentative assessment of the evidence to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty, or whether the matter instead calls for “further inquiry” under Section 497(2) of CrPC.

Says purpose of proceedings is to bring an accused to trial, not to detain them indefinitely

Justice Nihung noted that the victim’s medical examination was not conducted until roughly seven days after the alleged incident and only after a magistrate’s order. He said the medico-legal certificate itself did not record the date the examination took place. He maintained that the medical report found no tears, bruises, abrasions or swelling, and columns for bleeding and seminal staining were marked “Nil.” While the report noted a ruptured hymen, the judge noted, the examining doctor gave no opinion on when or how the rupture occurred, or whether it was linked to the alleged assault.

The judge observed that the medical officer, after reviewing both the physical examination and the forensic report, concluded that there was “no sufficient evidence to suggest that the sexual offence had been committed.”

The judge also noted that the victim’s statement had not been recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. He held that the severity of an accusation is not by itself sufficient to deny bail, as the burden of proof rests on the prosecution even at the pre-trial stage.

Justice Nihung also invoked the general principle that the purpose of criminal proceedings is to bring an accused to trial, not to detain them indefinitely before conviction. He allowed the petition, granting bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds of Rs1m.

The judge clarified that all observations made in the order are tentative and made only for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and directed the trial court to decide the case on the evidence presented at trial, uninfluenced by the bail order’s observations.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2026