2013 P Cr (PLP)

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J.

Having failed to secure relief from the courts below, Muhammad Shoib has applied for bail before this Court being involved in case F.I.R. 313 dated 29-6-2012 under section 376, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Buner, on the charges that he on 23-6-2012 at 12.30 hours committed rape upon complainant Mst. Noorma, a school going girl, aged about 11/12 years, without her will and consent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on no evidence and he was falsely implicated in the case. He further argued that there is unexplained delay in the lodging of report and medical report is not in support of the version of the prosecution as the doctor found no marks of violence on the body of the victim. He contended that there is nothing on the record suggesting the involvement of the accused/petitioner in the commission of offence, therefore, the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry into his guilt and is deserved to be released on bail.

3. As against this, learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State and counsel for complainant argued that, no doubt, there is delay in lodging of report but the same has been explained in the F.I.R. and mere delay in such like matters if plausibly explained cannot be considered fatal as normally the concerned parties being conscious of the family honour. They further argued that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence and has committed rape on school going girl aged about 11/12 years and the version of victim-complainant fully supported by the medical report. They submitted that there is sufficient material available on record which prima facie connects the petitioner with the commission of offence. They further argued that challan has been put in court, so, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.

4. Arguments heard and record perused.

5. Perusal of record would reveal that, no doubt, there is delay in lodging of the report but the same has been explained and in such like matters, delay is no ground for creating any doubt regarding the occurrence and such delay cannot be made a ground for bail when otherwise there is sufficient material available on the record which prima facie connecting the accused with the commission of offence. The charge levelled against the petitioner is of very serious in nature as the petitioner caught hold the complainant-victim, aged about 11/12 years, when she was on the way back from the School to her home, committed rape upon her and in this respect medical report supported the version of complainant; as at the time of examination, the Women Medical Officer found her hymen not intact. Admittedly, the complainant-victim is a school going virgin/tender age girl, could not be believed to put her career, personal respect and family honour at stake by fabricating a false allegation of such nature in the absence of any motive and in such like cases, people think hundred times before lodging the report because of fear of disgrace and involvement of family honour. The parties being co-villagers, there is no question of false implication and at this stage of the case, the petitioner is prima facie connected with the commission of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Absence of marks of struggle on the private parts of the body of the victim is not a disproof of the offence when the victim is a helpless virgin of eleven years and the assailant a man of strong physique of twenty-three years of age. Besides the above, challan has been submitted before the court and the accused has been summoned by the court, therefore, at this stage of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, this bail petition is dismissed. MWA/336/P Bail refused.