1997 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497(2)

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10

Bail, grant of

Zina in both the investigations conducted in the case was not found to have been committed with the victim

Medical report, prima facie, did not support the prosecution version as the victim was a married woman and her medical examination was conducted about five days after the alleged occurrence

Delay in lodging the F.I.R. in the circumstances of the case had adversely affected the prosecution version

Case against accused needed further inquiry and they were admitted to bail accordingly. Syed Javaid Ali Bokhari for Petitioners. Abdul Aziz for the State. Arguments heard and relevant record perused. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. which has not been explained adequately. Also that the medical report which is dated 28-11-1996 is not supporting the prosecution version. It is further added that two investigations were conducted in this case and to both of them it was held that only modesty of the victim Mst. Kalsoom was outraged and no criminal assault was made. This investigation was subsequently verified by the D.S.P., therefore,, initially a challan was submitted under section 354, P.P.C. but subsequently on an objection taken by the D.D.A., section 354, P.P.C. was again substituted by section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979.

2. Without resorting to any detailed appreciation of the evidence, suffice it to say at the moment that in this case two investigations have been conducted and in both of them it was found that no Zina has been committed. As far as the medical report is concerned, prima facie, it is not supporting the prosecution version because admittedly the victim is a married woman and her medical examination was conducted on 28-11-1996 i.e. about five days after the alleged occurrence. Delay in lodging such-like cases is not always fatal but keeping in view the circumstances of the present case the delay does affect adversely the prosecution case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I find that it is a case of further inquiry. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that observations with regard to merits of the case have been made only to decide the bail application to hand and they will not in any manner affect or prejudice the case of either party during trial. N.H.Q./M-305/L Bail allowed.