Dr. FARRUKH SHER KHAN Versus State
ORDER
1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- By this order I intend to dispose of instant Criminal Bail Application filed by the Applicant Doctor Farrokh Sher Khan.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that on 25.11.2016 between 11:30 to 12:00 the accused forcibly committed zina with the complainant, hence instant FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant crime by the complainant for ulterior motives. He urged that applicant by profession is a Doctor and was working as OSD, Ministry of Health (Health Department) and is a respectable citizen. Learned counsel further contends that there are many contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and medical evidence also does not corroborate with testimony of other prosecution witnesses, which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution and it is settled principle of law that benefit of doubt always go in favour of the accused, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail at this stage.
4. Learned APG opposes the grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the complainant/victim has fully implicated the applicant in the instant crime and sufficient material is available on record, which prima facie connects that applicant in the commission of crime.
5. I have heard Mr. Mahmoodul-Hasan advocate for the Applicant, Ms. Seema Zaidi APG and perused the material available on record with their assistance.
6. On tentative assessment of the material available on record, it transpired that the complainant stated in the FIR that she and Dr. Farrukh were alone in the house but nothing is mentioned in the FIR that her daughter namely Maria Hafeez was present at the time of incident whereas as per statement recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. two daughters of the complainant namely Maria Hafeez and Mahnoor Fatima were present at the time of incident and one daughter Mahnoor Fatima went to buy paratha from Patel Hospital, which improvement inflicts dent in the case of the prosecution and requires further inquiry. Incident took place on 25.11.2016 between 11:30 to 12:00 hours and FIR was lodged on 25.11.2016 at 2230 hours after the delay of about ten hours when the police was informed on helpline "15", police personnel came there but no plausible explanation is given by the complainant for such delay. Medical evidence also does not corroborate with the ocular testimony and as per medical report "result" Male DNA profile obtained from semen stains identified on Items 2.1 (Red color trouser of Mst. Lubna daughter of Sajjad Shah) does not share required alleles with DNA Profile obtained from Item 4.0 (Blood sample of suspect Dr. Farrukh Sher Khan son of Sharafat Sher Khan) and as per "conclusion" Dr. Farukh Sher Khan son of Sharafat Sher Khan (Item 4.0) is not the contributor of Male DNA/Sperm fractions identified on cloth of Mst. Lubna daughter of Sajjad Shah (Item 2.1).
7. SIP Farooq Azam, the third Investigating Officer present in Court states that he recommended the case for attempt to commit zina under section 511, P.P.C. mentioning that no zina was committed with the complainant. Several notices were repeatedly issued to the complainant and Investigating Officer present in Court submits that complainant has shifted to some unknown place.
8. In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the humble view that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry, therefore, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees Two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
9. Observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any such observation.
10. WA/F-12/Sindh Bail granted.