Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1428‑B of 1984, decided on 19th June, 1984.

---S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII 1979), S.12‑‑Bail, grant, of‑‑Delay in lodging first information report per se not sufficient for grant of bail.

‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII 1979), S.12‑‑Bail‑‑Sodomy‑‑Prosecution version supported by three eye-witnesses‑‑Medical evidence lending support to prosecution version first information report‑‑Prima facie no reason appearing for implicating, accused falsely‑‑Case falling within prohibitory clause of S.497, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Bail refused in circumstances.

Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Petitioner.

Sarfraz Hussain for the State.

Rana Liaqat Ali Khan for the Complainant.

Liaqat petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and two others under Article 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The allegations are that on 8th January, 1984 co‑accused Khurshid took away Ahmad Saleem complainant, aged 13, to Rajbah Noshehra Virkan on a cycle. Liaqat petitioner and co‑accused Saleem also joined him and committed sodomy with Ahmad Saleem under threats of death. Ahmad Saleem himself reported the occurrence at Police Station Farooqabad on 16th January, 1984 at 4‑25 p.m. He was medically examined by the Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital, Sheikhupura, who found a semi‑healed laceration 0.75 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. at that 7 o'clock position and a healed abrasion 2 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. on the front of right knee joint. The rectat swabs were not taken as the boy had passed stools many a time before his examination.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this case is the outcome of enmity over the election and a large number of respectables of village Kujjar had appeared during the investigation to plead innocence for the petitioner anti his co‑accused. It is submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days and the medical evidence does not in any way support the prosecution version, therefore, the case needs further inquiry.

The learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, submit that the delay in lodging the report has been explained in the F.I.R., the complainant had absolutely no enmity with the accused persons and the offence falls within the prohibitary clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, no ground for bail is made out.

3. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place on 8^th January, 1984 at 7 a.m. Ahmad Salim P.W. was medically examined on 16th January, 1984 at 10‑50 a.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on that day at 4‑25 p.m. In the F.I.R. Ahmad Saleem stated that he had narrated the occurrence to his maternal grand‑father on the same day who sent a message to his father, and on his arrival he obtained the medico‑legal report on 16th January, 1984 and started for reporting the matter. The explanation is unconvincing. However, the delay per se is not a sufficient ground for the grant of bail. The prosecution version is supported by three eye‑witnesses. They medical evidence lends support to the F. I. R. version. The victim had an injury on the anus and an abrasion on the right knee. Prima facie, there is no reason that the elders of the victim, a student of 9th class, would manipulate such injuries to falsely implicate the persons who in fact had not committed such an offence. The case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. I do not consider it a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.