LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has denied pre-arrest bail to a rape suspect, observing that the rape is not merely an offence against an individual but against the entire society. “Legal systems worldwide criminalise rape, with varying definitions and evidentiary requirements. However, the fundamental principle remains the same: it is a crime of violence, coercion, and domination,” Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh asserted in his judgement, dismissing a petition of the suspect. The judge noted that rape is universally recognised as one of the most heinous crimes, representing a profound violation of personal dignity, bodily autonomy, and fundamental human rights. “It is not merely a physical assault but an act of violence and domination that strikes at the very core of a person’s sense of self,” he emphasised. Judge says rape is not merely an offence against an individual but against the entire society According to the prosecution, the petitioner/suspect, Zain Tariq, owns a fabric shop in Tata Bazar near the ice factory in Faisalabad. He became acquainted with the complainant/victim through her frequent visits to purchase cloth. Over time, they developed a relationship, and the woman occasionally shared her domestic issues with him. The complainant alleged that the petitioner proposed that she run a boutique from her home. He offered to provide fabric worth Rs500,000 on loan, with an agreement that she would repay Rs100,000 every 15 days. The complainant alleged that on July 2, 2024 the petitioner invited her to visit a cloth warehouse, where an unknown person was already present. She claimed that the petitioner inappropriately touched her while the co-suspect pointed a pistol at her, and then the petitioner raped her. She also alleged that certain objectionable pictures and videos were taken, and the petitioner and his co-suspect threatened her to leak the material if she disclosed the incident. A counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant falsely implicated his client with ulterior motives. He argued that the prosecution’s narrative, particularly the alleged financial arrangement, was inherently implausible. A deputy prosecutor general, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, opposed bail plea. However, a woman investigating officer concluded that the incident involved fornication rather than rape. Her findings were primarily based on CCTV footage, photographs, and WhatsApp messages exchanged between the suspects and the victim. Encouraged by the investigating officer’s findings, the petitioner’s counsel raised an alternative plea that the alleged offence falls under section 496-B PPC (fornication) rather than section 376 PPC (rape). However, Justice Sheikh observed that rape must be distinguished from fornication as rape is a non-consensual act and, as adumbrated, rooted in violence, coercion, and domination, where the perpetrator disregards the victim’s autonomy and consent. In contrast, he explained, fornication refers to consensual sexual relations between individuals who are not married to each other. The judge noted that the police findings were essentially based on CCTV footage, pictures, and WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties. He said the evidence suggests a close relationship, possibly closer than the complainant acknowledges, but it does not definitively establish whether the act was consensual. “This critical determination requires thorough scrutiny of all the evidence during the trial,” the judge maintained, adding that the trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate the evidence, including the CCTV footage, WhatsApp messages, and other material, to determine the nature of the offence. Justice Sheikh remarked that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases where the accused can demonstrate that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent, personal animosity, or the like. In the instant case, the judge said, the petitioner failed to satisfy these requirements. He stated that the claims of inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence necessitate a detailed scrutiny alongside other evidence. He maintained that such evaluation is beyond the purview of a pre-arrest bail application. “Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of any exceptional circumstances justifying pre-arrest bail, this application is dismissed,” the judge concluded.