1981 P Cr (PLP)

Qurban Ali H. Chohan for Applicants. A. A. Mohomedally, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. The applicants have filed separate bail applications. Since they have been refused bail by the same order, I will therefore dispose of them toge ther. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that the applicant Sarfraz and others abducted Karamat Ali and Razaullah from a place near Metro Petrol Pump Latifabad, Hyderabad on the night between 13th and 14th of April. 1981. The applicant Sarfraz is alleged to have been armed with a revolver: The victims were however left by the applicants after making them naked and taking different poses showing that they were committing sodomy with each other. Such information was given at the Police Station Cantt: Latifabad which was recorded as N. C. by the police on 14th April, 1981 at 2 00 a. m. which was subsequently incor porated in the 154, Cr. P. C. book as F. I. R. The Police after usual investigation sent up the applicants to stand trial under sections 365, 342. 506, 307, P. P. C. read with section 12 of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The application for bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge. Hyderabad who by his order dated 9th May, 1981 dismissed it. The learned counsel for the applicants contends that there is delay of four hours in lodging the F. I. R. in spite of the fact that the incident is alleged to have taken place in heart of the city. It has also been contended by him that the complainant has not rushed to the police station though he was on motor-cycle. Moreover there being allegation of firing against the applicants as well as other assailants but no fire-arm injury has beet reported on person of any body. There is also admitted enmity between the parties over election of cricket association therefore possibility of involving the applicants falsely cannot be ruled out under the circumstances of the case. Their case therefore comes within scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. The learned Assistant A. G. concedes to grant of bail to the applicants subject to furnishing heavy sureties by the applicants. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as State. The incident is undoubtedly alleged to have taken place in heart of city. The F. I. R. being undoubtedly delayed in spite of the fact that the complainant was having a motor-cycle coupled with a fact of admitted enmity between the parties are such factors which require further inquiry as contemplated by section 497 (2), Cr. P. C. Therefore without going into the merits of the case, I grant bail to both of them. They shall be released on furnishing their solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000 each and P. R, bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail allowed.