ABBAS HAIDER GILANI Versus AZAD KASHMIR UNIVERSITY
After being unsuccessful at the lower forums, the petitioner seeks his release on bail through the instant application in case F.I.R. No.153, dated 6-9-1995 registered at Police Station Paharpur under section 10(2)/11/19 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable delay of about two days and the prosecutrix has gone with the accused on her own accord. According to him, the case of Zina is not proved from the record as required by law. In such circumstances, he contended that it is a fit case for the grant of bail.
3. Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjum Qasuria, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand has supported the prosecution version and submitted that the case against the accused falls under the prohibitory clause contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. He invited the attention of the Court towards the contents of the F.I.R. wherein it is alleged that Mst. Nusrat Shaheen was abducted by the accused giving her the impression that he will marry her After taking her to a remote place he committed Zina-bil-Jabr against her will. He argued that the version of Zina lends support from the medical evidence. He stated that the abductee has narrated the factum of Zina to P.Ws. Habibullah and Amanullah soon after its commission. He further submitted that the accused is a married person who in a deceitful manner trapped an innocent young girl and thereafter satisfied his sexual lust.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that the accused/petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Delay per se is no ground for the grant of bail. The report has been lodged by the father of the lady. No father on earth would afford to make the future of his daughter at risk by involving her in a rape case. Mst. Nusrat Shaheen has charged the accused under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. and her this version is supported, by the certificate of the Lady Doctor. At present, believing that the accused has committed the offence for which he is charged. The evaluation of evidence is left for the trial Court impression at this stage may not prejudice the cause of either party.
5. Resultantly, this application does not merit consideration which is dismissed.
N.H.Q./1915/P Bail refused.