MUHAMMAD AYAZ Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The respondents/accused were booked for the offence under sections 377/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 13/2016 dated 25-08-2016 registered at Police Station Airport Skardu.

2. They were committed to judicial lock up after necessary investigations and challan of the case as stated by the I.O. has now been presented in the Court, of learned Sessions Judge Skardu.

3. The respondents applied for bail before the learned trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge Skardu accepted their bail petition and allowed bail vide order/judgment dated 18-10-2016, which is now impugned before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted at bar that the respondents/accused are directly charged in the FIR with a specific allegation of committing sodomy with the complainant/petitioner, which is a heinous offence and falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Per learned counsel the order of learned trial Court is based on presumptions and bail has been allowed on wrong premises of law.

5. The learned counsel further submitted that the honour of a poor labour has been violated and accused/respondents are influential persons, who managed the investigation in their favour being in league with the local police.

6. The Dy. Advocate General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and prayed that bail granting order has been passed without realizing the gravity of offence and its penal consequences, which may be recalled.

7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and perusal of record it reveals that after lodging the FIR, the complainant was referred to DHQ Hospital Skardu, where he was medically examined and the medical evidence does not advance the case of prosecution, rather it is at variance with the story reflected in the FIR. The perusal of orders of learned trial Court shows that the order has been passed after due application of mind and when a case becomes one of the further inquiry, the bail is granted to the accused as a matter of right and not as a grace. There are different grounds for cancellation of bail allowed by a Court of competent jurisdiction, which are not available to the complainant in the case.

8. No point of law or fact raised at bar to exercise powers conferred under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, hence the petition is dismissed being meritless.

WA/245/GB Petition dismissed.