LIAQUAT ALI Versus STATE

ORDER

Liaquat Ali petitioner being an accused in case F.I.R. No.380, dated 26‑9‑1994 registered under section 354‑A, P.P.C. read with section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 with Police Station Manga Mandi District, Lahore, has filed this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. for the grant of post‑arrest bail.

2. Brief facts of the case according to F.I.R. are that on 26‑9‑1994 the complainant was going to her fields with food for her father, when she reached near the Jawar field of one Ramzan Langrya, the petitioner accused appeared all of sudden from the field of Jawar and caught hold of the complainant. On this she abused him. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused dragged her and tried to take her in Jawar field for the purpose of committing Zina with her. She fell on the ground and the petitioner tore the shirt and shalwar of the complainant and made ' her 'naked. On raising hue and cry of the complainant Sharif, Zulfiqar and her father attracted the spot. On seeing the P.Ws. Liaquat Ali petitioner ran away.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that according to F.I.R. itself, offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. is not made out a5 necessary conditions to attract the provisions of said section are not fulfilled. According to learned counsel at the most the offence falls under section 18 of Ordinance VII of 1979. He relied on 1989 P Cr. L J 954 and ,.1991 P Cr. L J 194. Learned counsel has also placed on record affidavits of eye‑witnesses to the effect that they know nothing about the occurrence and affidavit of victim lady has also been placed on record which' is to the effect that she has forgiven the accused in the name of Almighty Allah.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and submitted that as the challan has been submitted in the Court, therefore, no question arise for the release of the petitioner on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked as to whether the victim lady can be produced in the Court in support of her affidavit, he showed his inability. Mere filing of an affidavit without any corroborative evidence is not a sufficient fact to shake the veracity of the story put up by the complainant. In the case Nazir Ahmad v. The State PLD 1977 Lah. 1261 it was held that there are only three sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., sections 74, 526 and 539‑A, according to which a fact may be got proved by affidavit. It, therefore, follows that an affidavit not covered by these sections is not a legal evidence. The same proposition came under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and their Lordships in case Mst. Bushran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1990 SC 83 observed that even under Article 163 of the Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, procedure of swearing on Holy Quran (oath proceedings) is not applicable in criminal cases. Further the question whether the provisions of section 354‑A, P.P.C. are attracted or not cannot be adjudged at this stage as that would amount to pre‑erupting the trial. It may also be observed that no reasonable or even a person of lowly status in our society would coin up the story involving the family honour. The offences with which the petitioner has been charged are of heinous nature.

7. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The bail petition is accordingly rejected.

N.H.Q./L‑100/L Bail refused.