Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No.565 of 1986, decided on 4th May 1986.

‑‑‑5. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.323/382/109‑‑Offence of Zine (Enforcement of Hudood)' Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Co‑accused already on bail‑‑F.I.R. delayed by two days‑‑Co‑accused having no relationship or connection with accused‑‑Prosecution witnesses not supporting prosecution in their sworn affidavits‑‑Injuries on person of victim 5‑7 days old although examined by doctor after three days of occurrence‑‑Case of accused, held, called for further inquiry‑‑Bail allowed.

M.M. Kazi for Applicant.

Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.‑G. for the State.

The applicant along with co‑accused Mst. Rahima has been placed on trial for the offences punishable under sections 10(3), Zina Ordinance, 1979 and 382, 323 and 109, P.P.C.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and so also the learned A.A.‑G: The co‑accused has already been released on bail. The allegations against her are that she sent the victim woman namely Mst. Noor Bai to fetch soap from inside her house which was opposite' to the water tap where the said co‑accused was washing clothes and as such as the victim woman went inside the house, the co‑accused bolted the door from outside.

As for the present applicant it is alleged that he was already available in the said house and on entering of the victim woman in the house he caught hold of her, fell her down on the ground and committed rape with her. The victim woman raised hue and cry whereupon besides her sister Ruqayya, Muhammad Habib, Rukhsana and several others arrived. Before the accused ran away he removed the bangles and ear‑rings from the person of the victim woman.

The first submission made by the learned counsel about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. No doubt the incident took place on 31‑3‑19861 at 1.00 p.m. but the F.I.R.was lodged two days later i.e. 2‑4‑1986 at 6.10 p.m. although the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is shown to be only two furlongs. There is no explanation forthcoming for this delay.

The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the presence of the applicant inside the house belonging the co‑accused was doubtful as he has absolutely no relationship or connection with the co‑accused who is a young lady of eighteen years. He has further submitted that Rukhsana and who were amongst those who had arrived on cries have not supported the prosecution case in their affidavits sworn by them before the Superintendent/ Oath Commissioner of this Court. I have gone through these affidavits. It is found that the deponents were identified before the Oath Commissioner by the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. M.M. Kazi and as such the authenticity of the affidavits is not questioned.

It is also submitted that as disclosed in the medical certificate the injuries found on the person on the victim lady were five to seven days old although she was examined by the doctor three days after the occurrence. This is not denied by the learned A.A‑G. who has, for above reasons, no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

In view of the above, the case of the applicant calls for further enquiry. Bail is allowed to the applicant in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupess twenty‑five thousand only) and P.R. of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.A. Bail allowed .

Find a Lawyer Near You

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