2008 PLP 1986 (YLR)

HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--Seeks post-arrest bail in case, F.I.R. No.426/2007, dated 29-5-2007 registered at Police Station new Multan, District Multan, in respect of offences under section 367A/34, P.P.C. Afterwards offence under section 337, P.P.C. was also added.

2. In this case the criminal proceedings were triggered off on the application filed by Asif Ali, complainant according to whom Muhammad Javed co-accused visited the complainant's house at 12-00 noon on 25-5-2007 and took away his son namely Haseeb Asif aged 14-years. He further alleged that as his son Haseeb Asif did not return till evening, he suspected some foul play upon which the parents of Muhammad Javed co-accused were contacted by him but they failed to give any satisfactory reply. On the next day according to the complainant, he was contacted by Muhammad Javed through a cello phone and he (Muhammad Javed) allegedly told the complainant that he should not worry about his son who was safe and sound. The complainant went On to narrate that on further inquiry he came to know that Muhammad Javed co-accused had established a group comprising Muhammad Ikram, Asad co-accused and Muhammad Asghar petitioner apart from himself to abduct the children for commission of unnatural offence.

3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 4 days in lodging the F.I.R., that the allegation of abduction has not been levelled against the petitioner and that during the investigation it was transpired that the petitioner had not committed sodomy with Haseeb Asif, the alleged victim.

4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner who is specifically named in the F.I.R. has committed a heinous and abominable offence, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.

5. Admittedly there is inordinate delay of 4-days in lodging the F.I.R. I have further gathered that in the F.I.R., the allegation of abduction was levelled only against Muhammad Javaid co-accused and there is no such allegation against the petitioner. The record reveals that while making the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. the victim had stated that he had not been sodomized by the petitioner and only an attempt to commit sodomy was made by him. After due investigation the Investigating Officer opined that Asghar Ali petitioner had not committed unnatural offence with the victim. No incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during the investigation. Considering the said circumstances I have concluded that a case of further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner has been made out, within the meanings of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C., to say the least. Besides, the petitioner is suffering internment since 6-7-2007. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail, any more. Consequently, the application in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./A-47/L Bail granted.