AHMED Versus State

ORDER

Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.64 of 2003 dated 10‑5‑2003 registered under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 read with sections 377/342, P.P.C. at Police Station, Kot Mubarik, District Dera Ghazi Khan.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case that there is two days inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is conflict between the F.I.R. and the medical evidence; that Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Ishaq P. Ws. have not supported the prosecution case; that the petitioner has been declared innocent during the successive investigations. It is lastly contended that the case of the petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, he is entitled for concession of bail.

3. On the contrary the learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition contending that the offences complained against the petitioner are of heinous nature, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.

4. Heard both the parties Record perused.

5. Record reveals that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with the allegation of sodomy with Raheem Bakhsh yet the fact remains that there is two days inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. to which no plausible explanation is forthcoming on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the medical examination of the victim was made at a belated stage i.e. after a period of two days of the occurrence. He has further drawn my attention towards the fact that Muhammad Ishaq P.W. who is real paternal uncle of the victim and Muhammad Ramzan P.W. who is close relative of the victim, have not supported the prosecution version to this effect that they have not witnessed the occurrence. Although the learned State counsel contended that the finding of the police is not binding upon the Court in this respect it is observed that the same can be taken into consideration for the just decision of the bail matter. Moreover as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial against the petitioner has still not commenced. The speedy trial of the case is a recognized right of the petitioner and in case of delay in trial he is justified while asking for the relief of his post‑arrest bail. In view of the above discussion there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, his further detention in judicial lock‑up will not serve any useful purpose. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post‑arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

H.B.T./A‑261/L Bail granted.