2014 P Cr (PLP)

Petitioner Azhar Mehmood alias Moodi seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.139/2014 dated 27-4-2014 registered at Police Station Chak Baidi District, Pakpattan for offences under sections 365-B/376/337-J/342/292/506/509, P.P.C. read with section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

2. The allegations as succinctly unfolded in the F.I.R. are that petitioner deceitfully took the victim along on the pretext of facilitating the delivery case, but instead deceitfully took her to an unknown place where the co-accused namely Shehzad and Bashir Ahmed were already present. All of them allegedly administered her intoxicated juice on gun point. Whereafter, petitioner committed rape with her and the co-accused made her live video film. Subsequently, the victim was kept confined in a room by the petitioner and his co-accused and then dropped her outside of DHQ Hospital Pakpatan and had terrified that her video film will be played on Internet in case disclosure of incident was made. Even after the occurrence, the victim used to be blackmailed to sexual intercourse, and when she refused to submit before them, they managed to project the blue video film of the victim on internet.

3. It is the case of the learned counsel that petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated with malice and motive; adds that from bare reading of the F.I.R., no offence was committed attracting the mischief of sections 6 and 7, A.T.A., 1997; that no valid and tangible justification finds mention for lodging the F.I.R. after one year which materially affects the veracity and bona fides of the prosecution case; that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and so called recovery attributed to him was fabricated and planted upon him; he adds that the victim concealed the factum of her being married and did not get her medically examined to substantiate the alleged commission of rape with her; that co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail, thus, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail following the rule of consistency, that investigation is complete, petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, he is no more required for purposes of further investigation and recovery; that he cannot be confined in jail for indefinite duration and that petitioner's case squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry and he is entitled to be released on bail.

4. Whereas learned counsel for complainant as well learned Law Officer have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner tooth and nail both on factual as well legal plane.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined record. To begin with name of the petitioner conspicuously and categorically finds mention in the F.I.R. with specific role of having deceitfully taken the victim along with him on the pretext of facilitating delivery case of a woman, but instead she was taken to somewhere else, where after administering intoxicated juice, the victim was subjected to 'zina bil jabar' by the petitioner. Significantly in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C., she expressly and specifically reiterated and attributed the charges of her abduction, 'zina bil jabar', wrongful confinement and making of her video film. Nothing has been alleged by the learned counsel to show any malice, ill will, animosity or motive on the part of the complainant/victim for petitioner's false implication or substitution. In absence and without any motive or malice it cannot be said that petitioner is being roped in falsely for any ulterior motives on the part of victim or the police. Record reveals that consequent upon extensive and meticulous investigation, JIT found the petitioner to be involved in the commission of offence. During the course of investigation, CDs of the occurrence were recovered at the instance of the petitioner, which were sent for expert opinion and analysis. And conclusive report in the above context has been received in the affirmative to the effect that no editing/tampering was made therewith. More over, two witnesses of the vicinity corroborated the factum of playing the video film of the unfortunate incident to them. In our view playing of the video film of the victim by the accused persons is continuation of the offence. Prima facie, the evidence collected so far incriminates the petitioner to establish his physical presence, connectivity and participation in the crime. Ramifications of this detestable and abominable crime are multidimensional. Apparently, on account of desperate act of the petitioner and the co-accused an everlasting and inextricable stigma has been attached to her personal and social life. After subjecting the victim to 'zina bil jabar' and making her nude movie, threats of its widespread projection on internet and electronic media were constantly made by petitioner and his co-accused. And in turn, victim was still being coaxed to succumb to the sexual desires of the petitioner and the co-accused. Prima facie, it was a brutal and sensational crime which has to be deprecated and must be dealt with iron hands. Such heinous offences are not only committed against individual, rather are also considered against society and the State. The offences with which the petitioner has been charged squarely falls within the purview of prohibitory clause as contemplated by section 497, Cr.P.C. We are informed that Challan has also been submitted and there is every likelihood of the commencement of the trial. In this view of the matter, this Court expects that the learned Judge seized of trial of petitioner's case, proceeds therewith for its logical and expeditious conclusion in accordance with law.

6. For the above-mentioned facts and reasons, no case for interference is made out in favour of the petitioner with the consequence that captioned bail petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. MWA/A-145/L Bail refused.