Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2365-B of 1983, decided on 10th October, 1983.
---S.497 read with Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.377--E'aii--Comp lainant subjected to sodomy by no less than seven persons including petitioner--All accused named in F.I.R. and as such no mistake as to identity of petitioner--Medical evidence also supporting complainant's version--Bail declined, in circumstances
Muhammad Iqbal Sargana and Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 10th October, 1983.
This is an application for bail for an offence under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. in case registered vide F.I.R. 319, dated 30-7-1983 at Police Station Kutwali, Jhang.
2. It is claimed that petitioner being a police constable employed as Wireless Operator, was on duty at Mailsi some 200/300 miles away from the locale that there was delay of a week's time in reporting the offence, that the victim of the sodomy was an accustomed boy of considerable age, that the police was not able to form any firm opinion about the guilt of the petitioner a it found some force in the plea of alibi and lastly that in any event it was a case for further inquiry. Number of authorities were cited in support of these contentions. They were among others 1983 P Cr. L J 1984; 1981 S C M R 860 and 920: 1982 P Cr. L J 1198 and 1983 P Cr. L J 888.
3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand opposed the petition urging that the offence was punishable with death and that the petitioner was named in the F. I. R. by none else than the victim himself. As regards the plea of alibi, counsel submitted that there was no record with him. 4. According to the F.I.R. the complainant was subjected to sodomy by no less than seven persons including the present petitioner when) they took him from place to place for about a week. They were all named. There was no mistake as to the identity of the petitioner. No reason was advanced as to why he was mentioned for such a heinous offence. The medical evidence corroborates the complainant as semen was found in his anus. The delay was explained on the ground that he had been kept by the accused in their custody for all those days. Alibi was f said to be not much important in the context of bail. No doubt some duty rosters showed the petitioner to have been marked present on duty at Mailsi, but he was off at 1.00 o'clock on 22-7-1983 and was back on duty next day at 7 p.m. Such a long period of absence from duty was quite significant. Although counsel described the distance between Jhang and Mailsi to be somewhat 200/300 miles yet in these days of automation the distance was no more a problem.
5. 1983 P Cr. L J 888 was an authority in which bail was allowed on the plea of alibi but the background was infested with enmity. Nothing of the sort is available in this case. There is no reason to allow bail to the petitioner. The application is dismissed.
S. G. D. Bail declined.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer