BILQEES BIBI Versus DOLAT ALI ALIAS DOLA

ORDER

Case F.I.R. No.64/92 was registered at Police Station Lundianwala, District Faisalabad, under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on the statement of Mst. Bilquees Bibi, on 2-4-1992 at 4-10 p.m. The occurrence allegedly had taken place on 1-4-1992 at 10-00 a.m.

2. It is stated in the F.I.R. that Daulat Ali alias Dolu followed the complainant when she was going to her field of wheat crop. When she reached the field, Daulat felled her on the ground by catching her from the arm, and removed her Shalwar forcibly by breaking the string of the Shalwar and attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. The complainant resisted and raised alarm, whereupon P.Ws. Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Latif ran to the spot. On seeing them, Daulat ran away leaving the complainant naked..

3. Daulat was arrested on 8-4-1992. He was allowed post-arrest bail on 11-4-1992.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has approached this Court for cancellation of the bail.

5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the bail to the respondent, observing that Mst. Bilquis was not got medically examined; that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause; and that during investigation the case against the respondent was found doubtful. He .also took note of the argument of the counsel for the accused that the case fell within the ambit of section 354, P.P,C. and not under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, .1979.

6. As it was a case of attempt, no medical examination of the victim was required to be done. The facts given in the F.I.R. prima facie make out a case under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, A 1979. The view, therefore, formed by the Additional sessions Judge that it was not a case under section 18 of the Offence of Zina and falls within the ambit of section 354, P.P.C, was not correct.

The A.S.I., who has brought the record, on being asked, after having gone through the file, clearly stated that no Police Officer at any stage had noted that the case against the accused was doubtful. It is not known, how the 8 Additional Sessions Judge noted this fact in the impugned order. Obviously, bail has been allowed on incorrect facts and faulty appreciation of the contents t of the F.I.R. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The respondent shall be taken into custody.

N.H.Q./B-127/L Bail cancelled.