Sakhi Rehmat vs The State

ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant post arrest bail petition the petitioner/accused seeks post arres t bail in case FIR No. 31/18 dated 11-11-2018, registered under sections 377, 377-B, 341/51 1, P. P.O. at Police Station Singul Tehsil Punial.

2. Succinctly the facts of prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR are that on 11-11-2018, at 5:40 p.m. the nephew of the complainant namely Safwan son of Shahzman age of about 08 years was coming back to his house from City Chowk Bazar Sherqillah, when he reached near Aga Higher Seco ndary School Sherqillah the petitioner/accused caught hold the victim and removed his shalwar/trousers and was attempting to commit sodomy/un-natural offence upon the victim. On hue and cry of the victim child two persons namely Himat Sharif and Mohummad Zia rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing the above named persons the petitioner/accused decamped from the place of occurrence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused contended that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner/accused has not committed un-natural offence with the alleged victim, therefore provisions of section 377, P.P.C. does not attract to the case of the petitioner , hence, the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner/accused is behind the bars for last about one year .

4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate General controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has committed an offence of moral turpitude by attempting to commit sodomy with a minor child of 8 years old. The learned Dy. A.G. further argued that offence under section 377 falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Dy. A.G. and perused the available record appended with the instant bail petition.

6. From perusal of record it transpires that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of attempt to commit un-natural offence with victim child aged about 8 years. The child victim and two impartial eye-witnesses have fully implicated the petitioner/accused in offence in their statements recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioner has been fully implicated in heinous offence against not only the minor victim but also against the society as the petitioner/accused has tried to commit an offence of moral turpitude in a civilized village/socie ty and on seeing of eye-witnesses namely Himat Sharif and Mohummad Zia the petitioner has fled away from the place of occurrence otherwise he had to commit sodomy upon the victim.

Such like person does not deserve for concession of bail in exercise of discretionary powers under section 497, Cr.P.C.

7. In view of above facts and circumstances the petitioner has failed to make out case for grant for bail, hence this bail petition is IB dismissed.

8. Before parting with this judgment it is observed that since the petitioner is behind the bars for last about one year, therefore the prosecution as well as learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of accused/ petitioner within six months of the passing of this judgment, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh bail petition in the trial court on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial of the case of the petitioner/accused.

9. This bail petition is disposed of on the above terms. File.