MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs The STATE and another

ORDER

' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,201, dated 24-10- 2012, under sections 377, 386, 500, 364-A, 120-B, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Budyana, District Sialkot.

2. Precisely the story of F.I.R. As setup by Muhammad Rashid (complainant) is that Muhammad Anwar (petitioner) joined by his co-accused Usman alias Osama hatched up a conspiracy to blackmail him and in line whereof he, the accused-petitioner, through his son Awais, invited Sheraz aged 6/7 to his house and confined him at his haveli. Where Usman alias Osama accused committed sodomy upon him on the inducement of Muhammad Anwar (petitioner); the act of sodomy was picturized by the petitioner through his cell phone; the accused-petitioner approached Muhammad Rashid (complainant) at about 4-00 p.m. On 17-10-2012 in presence of Nadeem Akhtar and Atif Naeem to demand from him a sum of Rs,1 lac and to save his honour, the latter paid Rs,10,000 to the former and also beseeched him not to malign his family name; the accused-petitioner again came to his house and demanded more money from him but he refused whereon he left, extending threats of dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed the crime alleged and he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant either due to some misunderstanding or under a malicious plan; the petitioner himself moved an application before the SDPO Pasrur on 20-10-2012 with the request that sanctity of his haveli had been violated by Usman alias Osama accused to commit unnatural offence with minor Sheraz and got the scene picturized by one Subhan, so as to blackmail the complainant; the petitioner also moved an application before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of a case as police did not attend to the grievance of the petitioner, who is innocent, having not committed the crime.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the accused-petitioner is not only the master - mind of the whole occurrence but he, in furtherance .Of the common intention of all, also prepared an obscene film to blackmail the complainant; the cited witnesses, Nadeem Akhtar and Atif Naeem joined investigation and fully corroborated the story of F.I.R.; the alleged victim Sheraz was examined under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 2-11-2012 who implicated the petitioner in this case within, the meaning of F.I.R.; the petitioner led to the recovery of said video film, the memory card and cash amount of Rs,5,000 on 2-11-2012; lastly submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous, hence he may not be granted the relief prayed for.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing therecord, it is observed that the allegation against the petitioner is heinous as well as sensational. He, having foreknown the movement(s) of the complainant, who intended to report the criminal act of the accused to the police, submitted an application before the police for registration of a case against Usman alias Osama accused, which, was a smart move on his part. He however failed in his bid as, application filed by him was rejected by the police being false. He also filed a petition under section 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Against the said accused before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Pasrur but withdrew it on 8- 11-2012, as report submitted by the .SHO was detrimental to his version. Even otherwise, the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is fantastic and unbelievable being preposterous. There exist reasons to believe that the petitioner being in league with his co-accused schemed to stigmatize the complainant's family and blackmail him in the process. The petitioner actively contributed towards commission of the alleged offence by not only letting his co-accused use his haveli for an immoral activity but also picturized the devilish act of the sodomite, with intent to extort money from the complainant. A poor child of 6/7 years of age was made to succumb to bestial designs of an active-agent. The witnesses in whose presence the accused-petitioner extorted money from the complainant and still demanded more, consistently support the prosecution case. The alleged victim gave an account of his ordeal, while rendering statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the I.O. The medical certificate of the poor child renders necessary corroboration to the accusations, contained in the F.I.R. The Investigating Officer also added an offence under section 364-A, P.P.C.

During the course of investigation. The offence committed by the petitioner is well-covered by the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. For the discussion, supra I am not inclined to accept this application, which is dismissed accordingly.