2026 PLP 416 (MLD)

Mushtaq Muhammad, J.

Subsequent to the rejection of his post arrest bail application in Crime No. 23/2025 by the learned Session Judge Gilgit during summer vacations on 29-07-2025, the accused/petitioner has filed his formal request for the same relief before this Court, primarily on the grounds that prosecution's case suffers from dearth of direct evidence on the particular allegation of abduction and un-natural offence, that FIR suffers an unexplained delay of twenty six days, that offence under sectopm 367-A, P.P.C does not attract in the case for want of prompt report and same is an afterthought subsequent to registration of Crime No.23/2025, that accused/petitioner is seventeen years of age and besides the above, investigation of the case is complete and accused/petitioner is in judicial custody waiting for commencement of trial. Learned counsel concluded his submissions that case against the accused/petitioner is one of further inquiry therefore, he may be released on bail. Mr. Muntazir Abbas advocate, in support of his submissions has placed his reliance on the judgments cited, "Umair v. The State." (2021 MLD 527), "Farman Ali v. The State and another" (2018 PCr.LJ 343) and "Muhammad Zeeshan Shani's Case" (2018 PLJ Cr.C 570).

2. In contrast to the above submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner, the learned Addl. Advocate General, ably assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Imtiaz Hussain advocate, contended that the accused/petitioner is directly nominated in the FIR. They contended that medical examination of the victim has already been conducted at DHQ hospital Aliabad on the same day. They read out the report of victim recorded by the doctor at said hospital. They further submitted that samples have been collected for DNA examination. They added that vehicle used during commission of the offense has been seized as part of corroboratory evidence. They added further that eye-witness of the occurrence Sherzad son of Akram has recorded his statement before the police and he categorically implicated the accused/petitioner and his accomplice with specific reference of the place of occurrence. Concluding their reply, they contended that offence with which the accused/petitioner is charged, is one of capital punishment and that the learned Session Judge has rightly refused to grant the relief vide order dated 29.07.2025 and the same does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional defect, therefore the application in hand may not be accepted.

3. After meticulously considering the oral submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused/petitioner, the complainant and the learned Addl. Advocate General, the Crime No. 23/2025 dated 02.07.2025 registered at P.S Aliabad, is thoroughly examined. Apparently the FIR No.23/2025 of P.S. Aliabad suffers a delay of almost twenty-seven days. Perusal of the document reveals that complainant a teenaged boy (vide the medical report of DHQ hospital Aliabad) reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and has justified the said lapse of time that he was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner. Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the case is examined. During the perusal of record, statement of pw Latif Ahmed son of Ahmed Din caught the attention. This Pw has corroborated the statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage. The said Pw also stated about some video recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media.

4. Regarding abduction of a person for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim is corroborated by the Pw Sherzad. There is prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under section 367-A, P.P.C provides capital punishment. Delay in lodging of the report is explained by the complainant and same is corroborated by the Pw Latif Ahmed.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the accused/petitioner with reference to another Crime No.18/2025 registered at P.S. Aliabad, wherein the accused/petitioner is nominated for causing hurt to the complainant Mr. Konain Abbas. Learned counsel made a point that in both the FIRs of the same date, accused/petitioner is directly charged therefore, the case in hand is one of further inquiry. The argument is incorrect for the only reason that time of occurrence in both the FIRs is different.

6. The other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner, is not convincing. Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility is out of consideration. The mere fact that accused/petitioner is a juvenile can be considered in other offenses, but in a case where the accused is charged for un-natural offence and prima facie evidence supports the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile. Without recording and discussing this point any further, lest the trial court would influence, the matter is left at the discretion of learned trial court. However, keeping in view the gravity of offenses, the accused/petitioner cannot be granted benefit of his being one year below the age of adulthood, at this stage.

7. Case laws referred by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner perused. In the case cited, "Muhammad Zeeshan alias Shani v. The State" (supra) bail was granted to the accused for the alleged delay coupled with a negative medical report. Facts of "Farman Ali's case" (supra) are distinguishable to that of present case. In the judgment under reference learned single bench was influenced with a negative medical report. Whereas, in the case in hand there is positive medical report. In the case cited, "Umair v. The State" (supra), bail was granted on the grounds of delayed FIR coupled with negative medical report. Therefore, the judicial pronouncements referred by the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner are not applicable on all fours of the instant case, therefore, same cannot be relied upon.

8. Keeping the above in view, this petition filed by the accused/petitioner seeking post arrest bail in Crime No.23/2025 of P.S. Aliabad District Hunza, being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. File. JK/33/GB Application dismissed.