2004 PLP 2016 (YLR)

Sh. Junaid Riaz for the State. Date of hearing; 19th September, 2003. Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.357 of 2002, dated 28‑11‑2002 registered under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni.

2. Briefly the facts as per F.I.R. are that complainant Muhammad Arshad got registered the F.I.R. by submitting that his father had died about 6/7 months ago and his sister Mst. Naziran Bibi was married to Muhammad Asif. Mst. Naziran Bibi came to meet her family member few days ago. In the evening complainant went for' ploughing Tractor, whereas, his mother had gone to Toba Tek Singh and at home Naziran Bibi, Muhammad Asif nephew and Mst. Samina were present. Complainant returned home at 2/3 a.m. at night and came to know that Munir Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif after scaling over the wall entered the complainant's home, forcibly made his sister to drink liquor and after removing her 'Shalwar' remained committing Zina with her. On hue and cry of the minors, Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Akram came there. The accused persons then leaving Naziran Bibi in naked position ran away.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the most important two eye witnesses i.e. Asif and Sabah minors have not been examined by the Investigating Officer; that according to medical report there are no marks of violence on the person of the victim; that according to F.I.R. the victim was forced to take liquor but no blood examination was got conducted to verify this fact; that according to investigation the place of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. was not the same.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that the petitioner is charged with an offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, concedes that in the investigation it was found by the Investigating Officer that the alleged place of occurrence was not the house of the complainant but was in fact the house of the petitioner.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. According to A.S.P. present in Court who had verified the investigation of the subordinate police officer: The statements of the two witnesses were not recorded because according to him alleged occurrence had not taken place in the house of the complainant, therefore, they had not witnesses the occurrence. In this view of the matter, if the place, of occurrence is different then the presence of other two witnesses mentioned in the F.I. R. also. becomes doubtful. The non‑examination of victim for the purpose of forced drinking also reflects some shadow of doubt in the prosecution story. Prima facie, it appears that the case of the petitioner require further inquiry. He is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑248/L Bail granted.