SHAFQAT ALI vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,432 of 2010, dated 16-8-2010, for the offences under section 376, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Garh (Tandlianwala), District Faisalabad.

2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the. petitioner along with other co-accused abducted Mst. Nazeeran Bibi and comminuted zina bil jabr with her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further, argues that there is inordinate delay of about 10 days in lodging the F.I.R., according to the medico-legal report, there is no sign of violence on the body of alleged victim Mst. Nazeeran Bibi and the chemical report is also negative. Further contends that there are material contradictions amongst the statements of Mst. Nazeera Bibi which she has made under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. and the contents of the F.I.R. when placed in juxta position. Learned counsel further submits that all other co-accused have been exonerated from the offence and the Investigating Officer has declared them innocent. The petitioner is behind bars since 6-9-2010 and his further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail after arrest. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on 2009 M LD 19, YLR 2000 (Crl.

Cases) 222, 2007 PCr.LJ 1292 and 2001 YLR 540 and has prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.

4. On the contrary, learned District Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role that he has committed zina-bil-jabr with Mst, Nazeeran Bibi. The case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned District Prosecutor further argues that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence and he is not entitled to the grant of bail, therefore, the bail petition be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. It is evident from the record that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role that he has committed zina-bil-jabr with Mst. Nazeeran Bibi while forcibly taking her from her house.

The alleged victim herself confirmed the contents of F.I.R. when she made statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer and implicated the petitioner fully in the offence that he has committed zina with her againso, her consent. Even the said victim has fully implicated the petitioner in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate despite the fact that statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was not recorded at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

7. So far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of Chemical Examiner is negative is concerned, it is clarified that according to the report of Chemical Examiner, swa bs were sent after elapse of about 10 days of the commission of the offence while it has duly been stated in the report of Chemical Examiner that after elapse of 4-days, there are less chances of detection of semen, so the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the report of the Chemical Examiner because mere statement of victim in a rape case is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence, if statement of victim inspires confidence as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled, "Mushtaq Ahmed and another v. The State" reported as 2007 SCM R 473. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any animosity between the parties and could not satisfy this Court about why the complainant or his victim daughter has implicated the petitioner in this case because in our society no one can put at stake his own honour or the honour of his family for petty matters. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the matter in hand.

8. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence which falls within the A prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 6-9-2010. The challan of the case has already been sent to the trial Court on 10-9-2010. In the circumstances, no case for the grant of bail is made out.

9. Resultantly, this bail petition is bereft of any force, hence dismissed.