2008 PLP 337 (MLD)

IQBAL HAMEED UR RAHMAN, J.

Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.132 of 2007, dated 21-3-2007 under sections 376, 511, P.P.C. at Police Station Jahania, District Khanewal.

2. As per the contents of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner on the complaint of Rehana the allegation against the petitioner is that on 6-2-2007 she was alone sleeping in her house. Her husband had gone to water his field. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in the other room. At about 12-00 night the petitioner sealing over the wall entered into the house and then entered into the room of the complainant having a pistol in his hand. He laid beside the complainant on her and made an attempt to commit zina by attempting to untie her trouser string. She raised hue and cry which attracted her mother-in-law whereupon the petitioner ran away with his weapon.

3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner has been declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal, vide order, dated 2-6-2007.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR. has been lodged with an unexplained delay of 45 days, which makes the story of the prosecution doubtful, as such, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt; that the petitioner has not been arrested from the spot; that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to commit zina with the complainant by opening the string of the Shalwar. As per the version of the F.I.R. no-offence under section 376, P.P.C. is attracted; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 4-1/2 months and no more required for further investigation. Further that it is yet to be determined at the trial whether the petitioner has committed the offence under section 511, P.P.C. or not. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance is placed on the case of Atta Muhammad v. The State (2007 PCr. LJ 1149).

5. On the other hand, bail petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General on the ground that the F.I.R. has been lodged after filing an application under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the Justice of Peace; that the complainant had with hectic efforts got the instant case registered against the petitioner; that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner is quite elaborate order, which the learned counsel for the complainant adopts; further that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. According to the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that he attempted to commit zina with the complainant fully armed with weapon. He trespassed into the house of the complainant and tried to forcibly remove the Shalwar of the complainant. He tried to outrage the modesty of a woman and I am fully in consonance with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal wherein he has relied upon 1998 SD 211 according to which in an Islamic Society in which Islamic social and cultural values are being mauled up mild interpretation of words which constitute serious offences would only give an impetus to immorality and pollution of social values. It also exposes innocent womenfolk of the country to grave hazards of criminal assaults by unscrupulous and bad characters of society, which constitutes a heinous offence in an Islamic society, cannot be taken lightly. In the instant case the complainant after hectic efforts got registered the case against the petitioner, as such, the delay has also been explained. The offence under section 511, P.P.C. is made out against the petitioner, which falls within the prohibitory clause. There seems no mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police or the false deliberations. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-501/L Bail refused.