2004 P Cr (PLP)

Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioners. Taj Muhammad Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Shaukat Riaz for the State. Date of hearing: 6th June, 2002. Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Sarfraz and Shahid Iqbal alias Shehzad petitioners have sought their post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.285 registered at Police Station Burjwala, District Sahiwal on 19‑9‑2001 for an offence under section 354, P.P.C. Subsequently, offence under section 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. was also added. Meanwhile, section 354‑A, P.P.C. was added and deleted.

2. According to the story as given in the F.I.R. Mst. Naziran Bibi, unmarried sister of the complainant was dragged by the petitioners who were raising Lalkaras that they will denude her in public and will commit rape with her. At that time the petitioner Zafar Iqbal was allegedly armed with a dagger while Sarfraz petitioner was armed with iron rod. It is further stated that while the sister of the complainant was being dragged, her shirt .was torn and her breast was exposed. When the complainant tried to intervene, the, accused petitioner threatened with life and thereafter Zafar Iqbal petitioner with his dagger cut the string of Mst. Naziran, threw away her Shalwar and continued dragging Mst. Naziran for a distance of four acres. Due to dragging Mst. Naziran received injuries on her person. It was further added that Mst. Naziran was dragged by the petitioners to their houses but they could not succeed in committing rape with her as the inmates of the village had assembled there. The motive as` given in the F.I.R. was that the petitioner suspected that Muhammad Asif brother of the complainant had illicit relations with one Mst. Shazia, niece of the petitioners and an altercation had taken place with the afore‑referred Asif on that score.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that section 354, P.P.C. is bailable while section 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. did not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the State have vehemently argued that the petitioners had committed a heinous offence not only against a person but against the society and did not deserve any concession of bail. It has been argued that during investigation section 354‑A, P.P.C. was added by the Investigating D.S.P. but the same was subsequently deleted due to the mala fide of the police officials who were bent upon to help the petitioners from the very beginning. It has also been argued that despite the fact that Mst. Naziran was examined on the date of occurrence and the medical examination revealed injuries on the person of Mst. Naziran yet the case was not registered by the police for about three months and the case was finally registered after an order was obtained by the complainant from this Court. It has been lastly argued that the contents of the F.I.R. clearly show commission of offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. and the Court was not bound by the opinion of the police.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the challan of the case has been submitted before the learned Trial Court and the same does not contain the provisions of section 354‑A, P.P.C. Statement of Mst. Naziran who is a victim was recorded by the police and according to her statement she was dragged by the petitioners but there is no allegation that the string of her Shalwar was cut or she was denuded in public. It was laid down in the case of Muhammad Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277 that the case cannot be stretched in favour of the accused or in favour of the prosecution. In these circumstances whether any offence under section 354‑A, P.P.C. was committed or not would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. Out of the remaining offences section 354, P.P.C. is bailable and section 337‑L(ii), P.P.C. is not punishable with ten years or more. Resultantly, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./Z‑204/L Bail granted.