SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSUF

ORDER

1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J .‑A case under section 363/366/376, P. P. C. has been registered at Police Station, Sadar, Tehsil and District Sahiwal, on the 15th May 1969, against respondent No. 1. The allegation against him is that he trespassed into the house of the petitioner on the night between 14th May 1969 and 15th relay 1969 and forcibly lifted Mst. Razia minor daughter of the petitioner aged about 13/14 years and took her upstairs and thereafter committed rape upon her on the roof of the mosque adjoining the house of the petitioner.

2. Respondent No. 1 moved an application for bail, which was dismissed by Cheema, J. but permission was granted to him to move another fresh petition when the commencement of the Intermediate Examination of respondent No. 1 draws near. Respondent No. 1, thereupon, made a second application and he was granted bail by Shaukat Ali, J. on the 4 th December 1969 so that he may appear in his Intermediate Examina tion held in December 1969, for appearing in the compartmental examination in Islamic Studies and Economics. His bail application was confirmed by' Mushtaq Hussain Munir, J. on the 10th February 1970. The learned Single Judge repelled the contention raised on behalf of the State that respondent No. 1 is tampering with the evidence of the prosecution. In this connection, it was ‑observed 'that only the Police Officer or the doctor, besides two sisters of the prosecution are to be examined and it was difficult to understand that respondent would threaten these persons.

3. Petitioner also moved an application for cancellation of interim bail but as, he was not present it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. Kh. Shaukat Ali learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that bail has been granted to respondent No. 1 on illegal grounds and that it is a fit case in which his bail should be cancelled. It is unnecessary to go into these questions because the petitioner has got a right to move another application for the cancellation of the bail of respondent No. 1. It is open to him to move another such application if he is so advised. At this stage there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.