ALAM KHAN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although the applicant has been charged with offence punishable under section 12 of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, which is punishable with death, but the accusations contained in the F.I.R. it is doubtful that a offence under section 12 was committed by the applicant as allegations are that the applicant took the victim to a nearby Katcha house and committed sodomy on him. The contention is that at the most the offence would fall under section 377, P.P.C. which is not punishable with death and consequently for deriving benefit under the third proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. it is sufficient to show that applicant has remained in custody for a continuous period exceeding one year. A copy of the case diary filed by the applicant shows that the applicant has remained in custody or more than one year without any act or omission on his part which might have occasioned the delay.

2. Consequently in my view the case of the applicant falls within the purview of the third proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and he is entitled to bail.

3. Bail is, therefore, granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

4. H.B.T./A‑245/K Bail granted.