MANZOOR AHMED Versus State

ORDER

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J .---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 593 of 2007, dated 5-5-2007, registered under section 376, . P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Faisalabad.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he on 28-11-2006 had committed Zina-bil-Jabr with his sister-in-law Abida Parveen.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an unexplained delay of six months in lodging of the F.I.R. The medical examination of the victim was conducted after the lapse of six months He further submits that there are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence and one of those is real brother of the victim. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, in fact no such occurrence has ever taken place. The petitioner is in jail for the last one year, therefore, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt.

4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has committed heinous offence of committing Zina-bil-Jabr with his sister-in-law, which is unpardonable sin and offence. He has also given explanation regarding the delay of six months in lodging of the F.I.R. and has submitted that the complainant did go to the concerned police station for the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner but the concerned police officer was not inclined in registering the case against the petitioner, therefore, she was left with no other option except to file an application to the learned Justice of Peace seeking directions for registration of criminal case against the petitioner which was accordingly given to the concerned police officer and ultimately case was registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and there are three eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence. He lastly submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. and have also perused the record. There are two aspects of the case, wherein it would cast serious doubt in one's mind regarding commission of said offence. Firstly, at the time of occurrence as stated by the learned D.P.G., there are three eye-witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence but, I am afraid none of the eye-witnesses has tried to apprehend the petitioner when very serious offence was being committed and that too in the house of the petitioner. It seems highly improbable, implausible and unbelievable that serious crime of Zina-bil-Jabr was being committed and the real brother of the victim being the eye-witness of the occurrence did not try to apprehended the petitioner especially when petitioner was not armed and rest of two eye-witnesses stood .here like silent spectators and watched the occurrence and did not move forward to save the victim from the clutches of the petitioner. Secondly, the medical examination of the victim was conducted after the lapse of six months. Had the story narrated in the F.I.R. been true, then there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to get her medically examined after six months. This factum also does not appeal to one's mind for the reason that semen stained swabs collected from the vagina of the victim after six months are of no significance and are inconsequential, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the medical report as well. The police also did not recover any incriminating material which could connect the petitioner with the commission of said offence.

6. Under the circumstances, story narrated in the F.I.R. seems concocted, fabricated and unbelievable and it is clear case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

Petition stands disposed of.

N.H.Q./M-213/L Bail allowed.