Sain HAIDER ALI vs THE STATE and anothers

ORDER

' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Sain Haider Ali petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,541/11, dated 11-9-2011 registered at Police Station Girjakh, District Gujranwala for offences under section 336, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 334, 337- A(i)134, P.P.C. Were added to the F.I.R. Whereas section 109. P.P.C. Was substituted by section 328, P.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of one month in registration of the F.I.R. Which is not explained or the complainant. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner, He has been falsely involved in this case, by the police with ulterior motives.

No time and date is mentioned in the F.I.R. So as to establish as to when the occurrence took place.

The petitioner was just giving treatment to the baby. The offences alleged in the F.I.R. Are not made out against the petitioner. The petitioner is previously non-convict. He is in custody for the last six months.

3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Wherein specific role is attributed to him. During the investigation of this case weapon of offence (razor) was also recovered from him. The Medico-legal Report of baby is on record which provides full support to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The parents of baby also recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Pointing their accusing fingers towards the petitioner as the culprit, who has perpetrated the, offence in question. The petitioner has been found guilty during the investigation of this case. The trial is in progress and the petitioner is delaying the trial on one pretext or the other.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. Without going into deeper appreciation of evidence it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of removing/cutting penis of child with razor who is a helpless baby of two years causing his permanent sexual loss which is the vital organ of a human body. The act of the petitioner was not only gruesome but the same was worse and outrageous than the assassination of the defenseless victim baby. By committing this merciless and ignominious offence the petitioner has made the victim to permanently suffer for whole of his future life. In such like circumstances the courts do not exercise their discretion in favour of accused. Reliance is placed on the cases of Attique-ur-Rehman v. The State (2010 YLR 2446) and Khaliq Dad v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ. 28). During the investigation of this case the weapon of offence was also recovered from the petitioner. The Medico-legal Report of the baby provides sufficient support to the allegations set forth in the F.I.R. Prima facie it seems that the petitioner has indulged himself into unnatural cold-blooded evil activity and in 'this way playing hell with the fate of innocent helpless children of tender ages. At this stage this Court would not like to let loose such nasty person by extending discretion of bail in his favour which will of course provide him another opportunity to continue repetition of such offence. The offences with which the petitioner is being charged fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.,

6. For what has been discussed above prima facie sufficient material is available connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and this petition is, therefore, dismissed. The observations made above are just tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the disposal of this petition.

7. The learned, trial Court is directed to make every possible effort in conclusion of the trial within two months positively from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).