2021 PLP 1735 (YLR)

OMAR SIAL, J.

Mohammad Tariq has sought post arrest bail in Crime No. 268 of 2020 registered under section 377, P.P.C. at the Manghopir Police Station. Earlier, his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West on 13-8-2020.

2. A background to the case is that the aforementioned FIR was lodged on 16-5-2020 by Umeed Ali Malangi reporting an incident which had occurred on 14.5.2020. He recorded in the FIR that his nephew Yaseen who is 14 years old told him that on 14-5-2020 the applicant, Mohammad Tariq, a co-worker at the hotel he works in, took him to a deserted spot on the pretext of cutting wood for the hotel and when they got there, Tariq tied him up on the force of a pistol and sodomized him. Later, Tariq let him go but only after threatening him of dire consequences if he told anybody about the said incident.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no witness; that the DNA report was in the negative; that the FIR is substantially delayed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned DPG. The complainant and the victim effected an appearance on court notice but remained unrepresented due to financial constraints. My observations are as follows.

5. It appears to be correct that there is no witness apart from the victim in this case. DNA reports are of not much use as samples were collected and sent at a much later date by the investigating officer. I have been appalled to notice the gross negligence of the investigating officer in this case. It was not till after the interim report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted that the investigating officer of the case recorded the statement of the victim. This court took notice of this lapse on the part of the investigating officer and vide its order dated 19.11.2020 had directed the CCPO to take notice of the same. The investigating officer of the case has conducted an extremely negligent investigation in the case, to the detriment of the victim. Further, I am also constrained to record my displeasure at the negligence of the learned DDPP who had forwarded the challan for the learned judge to take cognizance. It is obvious that the interim challan was not perused by the learned DDPP. I am of the view however that lapses on the part of the investigation/ prosecution at this preliminary stage should not have an adverse impact on the victim.

6. The FIR is delayed. However, the victim has told the court that the delay was caused as a consequence of sheer fear on the part of his family as the applicant is apparently a gun totting man who is feared in the locality. The impact of the delay will be determined by the learned trial court after evidence is led.

7. The offence is one where it is not surprising that there is no other witness. The trauma and fear is however obvious on the face of the child. Solely, upon a tentative assessment of the statement given by the victim I am of the view that the applicant does indeed have a case to answer. The truth of the matter will be determined at trial. Prima facie, the victim has no reason to falsely implicate the applicant.

8. In view of the above, the bail application is dismissed. SA/M-12/Sindh Bail declined.