ILYAS Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Inspector, Legal from the D.I.‑G. Office, Multan is present in Court and states that case F.I.R. No.169 of 1997 is still under investigation and the investigation of this case was no transferred to the Range Crime. Further states that inadvertently the investigation in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1997" had also been entrusted to Range Crime although the record which has nook been perused indicates that the investigation in case F. I. R. No. 88 of 1997 stood finalised. The challan had been submitted in this case in which the competent Court of law has now taken cognizance. The Inspector. Legal has assured this Court that he would get the orders of investigation issued in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1997 rescinded within the shortest possible time. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants now to argue the bail petition on merits in case F.I.R. No.88 of 1997.

2. Ilyas, petitioner is seeking post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.88 of 199`r under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari on the statement of one Allah Ditta brother of Mst. Aasia, the victim.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 17‑5‑1997 at 3‑00 a.m. Ilyas petitioner alongwith Tahir Mehmood and Amin forcibly took Mst. Aasia to nearby cattle shed where all of them alongwith one unknown person committed sexual intercourse against her will with her.

4. Ilyas petitioner was arrested on 25 ‑5‑1997 while Tahir Mehmood and Amin co‑accused were found innocent by the police in course of investigation and discharged on,28‑6‑1997 by the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Vehari. The unknown person is yet to be traced. Mst. Aasia was medically examined on 18‑5‑1997 and according to the medical certificate there were no marks of violence on her body.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with the discharge of two co‑accused prosecution case has been found false and there are no special circumstances or evidence to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of the two co‑accused who have been discharged. The challan of the case is pending before the learned trial Court and according to the report submitted by the learned trial Court the case is fixed for formal charge and evidence. It is yet to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as to whether the petitioner alone could have committed this offence or not. Be that as it may, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that there exists a case of further inquiry against the petitioner. He is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./I‑50/L Bail granted.