MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 12th of June 1995 at 11 a.m., a case under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 451, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Azam (petitioner) with Police Station Noor Kot District Narowal at the complaint of Muhammad Arif. The complainant is a resident of village Jhanday Langha and, at present, works to earn his livlihood in Dina, District Jhelum. In his absence, on the night between 11/12-6-1995 at about 2-00 a.m., when his wife Mst. Manzooran had also gone to visit her relatives and his daughter Mst.

2. Kaukab Bibi was alone and sleeping in the courtyard of her house. The petitioner, Muhammad Azam is alleged to have trespassed into the house and committed rape with Mst. .Kaukab Bibi at pistol point. At her alarm, Mst. Parveen Bibi and Muhammad Asif who were sleeping on the roof of their house, reached and witnessed the occurrence. The room where Muhammad Azam was committing rape with Mst. Kaukab Bibi was bolted from outside by Mst. Parveen Bibi. The petitioner broke open the door and ran away with his weapon. Muhammad Boota, Muhammad Islam and Nazir Hussain saw the petitioner while running from the spot. On 19-7-1995, a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal dismissed pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner on the ground that he could not show any mala fide in implicating him in this case. A learned Judge in the Lahore High Court also dismissed the bail petition by observing:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR were false and he was involved due to political victimization.

3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. There arc serious allegations against the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the- petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary concession of bail before arrest. His petition is, therefore, dismissed. After arrest, the petitioner may apply for bail before the Sessions Judge."

4. ' This petition seeking leave to appeal has been instituted.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and reading the record, we agree with the observation of the High Court that allegations levelled against petitioner are serious in nature. The discretion in refusing bail before-arrest to the petitioner has rightly been exercised. The right of pre arrest bail is limited to exceptional and rare cases which are based on mala fide/enmity or where no offence is shown to have been committed on the bare reading of F.I.R. This is, undoubtedly, not a case from that category. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused: