2000 PLP 26 (YLR)

The applicant is facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar, arising out of Crime No.l of 1999 of P.S. Bhand Mari, under sections 377 and 511, P.P.C. read with section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The facts as narrated by complainant Ghulam Hyder in his F.I.R., which was lodged on 22nd April, 1999, are that about ten clays back he had gone to village Doud dero for selling wheat. His son Fazal came to an agent Mumtaz Khoso at his shop in the aforesaid village and informed him that the present applicant has forcibly taken Hayat in order to commit unnatural intercourse with him. The complainant accompanied him to the pointed place and found the applicant trying to commit the alleged offence with Hayat. The applicant on seeing the complainant party, managed to run away. The complainant thereafter, lodged this First Information Report after 10 days to the effect that the present applicant had attempted to commit unnatural intercourse with his son Hayat. It is contended that the F.I.R. is belated by about 10 days and no explanation is given by the complainant for‑ such an inordinate delay. The place where aforesaid information was received by the complainant is about half kilometre away from the scene of offence. It is further contended that except the father and brother of victim boy, there is no other evidence available on record against the accused. The Mashirnama of Vardat does not reveal any marks of violence. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has very fairly and candidly conceded to the grant of bail, in view of the aforesaid cases and circumstances. The perusal of police papers indicates that the alleged incident had occurred 10 days prior to the registration of the F.I.R. and no explanation for such delay is given by the complainant. The Mashirnama, of Vardat has been perused, which reveals that the village, where the complainant was informed about this incident is situated at a distance of about half kilometre from the scene of offence. There is no other circumstantial or corroborative piece of evidence available on record, to that of the evidence of father and brother of victim. The offence under section 511, P. P. C., does not come under the purview of prohibitory clause contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The accused is in custody since 23‑4‑1999. Under these circumstances, the case of applicant requires further enquiry and at present, it appears, that he has not been guilty of any non‑bailable offence. For the foregoing reasons, the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./N‑112/K Bail granted.