WAJID ALI Versus State

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J. --- This petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioners/accused for grant of post arrest bail in case FIR No.80/19 dated 12-12-2019, registered under section 377/34, P.P.C., at Police Station Basin, District Gilgit.

2. Briefly allegation against the petitioners/accused as disclosed in the FIR is that the petitioners/accused have committed sodomy/unnatural offence with a sheep of complainant, namely Mukhtar, on 12-12-2019, at a pasture situated at Haltish, Bargo Paeen. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has contended that the petitioners/ accused are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners/ accused has further contended that the petitioners/accused has effected compromise with the complainant and he has no objection if petitioners/accused are released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has further contended that petitioner No.1, namely Wajid Ali, is juvenile as his date of birth is 03.11.2002, whereas, petitioner No.2, namely Iftikhar, is also a teenager and is a student of 10th Class, therefore, petitioners/accused are entitled for concession of bail.

3. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has opposed this petition by contending that the petitioners/accused have committed an offence of moral turpitude, therefore, the petitioners/accused are not entitled for concession of bail.

4. I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. Today, the complainant namely Mukhtar appeared before this Court and stated that he has compounded the offence with the petitioners/accused and he has no objection if the petitioners/accused are released on bail. Petitioner No.1 namely Wajid Ali was juvenile at the time of commission of offence as evident from Form-B issued by NADRA. Both the petitioners/accused are students and are studying in a school, therefore, they are entitled for concession of bail.

6. Although the offence under section 377, P.P.C. is not compoundable, however, the complainant does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioners/accused any further. Court cannot compel the complainant to prosecute the case against the petitioners/ accused, hence, compromise is a good ground for concession of bail.

7. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Vacations/Duty Judicial Magistrate at Gilgit. File.

ADN/2/GB Bail allowed.