2020 P Cr (PLP)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant bail petition, the petitioner/accused namely Kashan Mehdi son of Khushlim Jan resident of Amphary District Gilgit, has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No.111/2018 dated 23-9-2018, registered under sections 364-A, 376 and 511, P.P.C. at Police Station City Gilgit, at the instance of Zaid Ali son of Muhammad Aqil Khan, the complainant.

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner/accused as disclosed by the above named complainant in the FIR is that on 23-9-2018 at 11:30 a.m., the present complainant along with two persons namely Athar Hussan and Sher Abbas were present at the house of complainant situated at Amphari, Gilgit. In the meantime, they heard sound of weeping of a girl. Accordingly, the complainant and the above named PWs came out from the house and found that the voice of weeping was coming from the house of Sharafat Hussain King. The complainant and the above named PWs went into the house of above named person and found that the petitioner/accused was attempting to commit rape with the victim namely Dua Zahra real sister of complainant in the verandah of said house and seeing the complainant and the above eye-witnesses, the petitioner/ accused fled away from backside of the house. The victim girl aged about 5 years told the complainant that the petitioner/accused forcibly took her into the aforesaid house from a street and attempted to commit rape with her.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ accused contended that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has not committed rape with the victim. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that the petitioner/accused is insane/unsound minded and he is behind the bars for last more than one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused further argued that despite lapse of more than one year of the registration of FIR, charge against the petitioner/accused has not been framed and sections reflected in the FIR do not attract to the case of the petitioner/accused, therefore, the petitioner/ accused is entitled for concession of bail.

4. Conversely, the learned Dy. Advocate General and counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail petition by contending that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of attempt to commit rape with the sister of the complainant. The learned Dy. Advocate General and counsel for the complainant further argued that eye- witnesses namely Athar Hussain and Sher Abbas have witnessed the occurrence and the victim girl in her statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. has fully implicated the petitioner/accused in this case. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the petitioner/ accused is habitual offender besides this case, he is also involved in cases FIR Nos.5/2016 and 31/2016. Concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner/accused has attempted to commit an offence of moral turpitude, thus, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Perusal of record would show that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of attempt to commit Zina with a minor girl. Two independent witnesses have witnessed the occurrence and in addition to the above named PWs, the victim girl has also fully implicated the petitioner/accused in this case. Offences under section sections 376 and 364-A, P.P.C. fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused seems to be a habitual offender as besides registration of this FIR, a similar nature FIR No.57/2016 has been lodged against him on 16/6/2016 at Police Station City, Gilgit and another FIR No.31/2016 has also been lodged against him at Police Station City, Gilgit.

7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, I hardly find any reason to admit the petitioner/accused to bail, as sufficient incriminating material/ evidence has been collected against the petitioner/accused during investigation of case. The innocent baby girl aged five years is the victim of the alleged occurrence and he did not care for the age of victim, thus, the petitioner/accused is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage.

8. Resultantly, this bail petition being meritless stands dismissed.

9. Before parting with this order the learned trial court is directed to conclude trial of the petitioner/accused as expeditiously as possible as the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused during his arguments stated that the petitioner/accused is behind the bars for last more than one year and even charge against the petitioner/accused has not been framed by the learned trial court. File. ADN/144/GB Petition dismissed.