1983 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑ S. 497‑Bail, grant of‑Applicant allegedly attempted to commit sodomy on victim boy and charged for offences under S. 377/511. P.P.C. and S. 12/18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979‑A grouse apparently existing inter alia between parties lContention that delay in filing F. I. R. coupled with existence of enmity and likelihood that case may not be proved ultimately, same would entitle applicant for grant of bail, held, correct‑Bail allowed, in circumstances‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 12 &

18. Madad Ali Shah for Applicant. Sarfraz Ahmed, A. A: G. for the State. Aftab Akhund for the Complainant, This bail application is moved on behalf of Ghulam Muhammad son of Adbul Sattar who is challaned under section 317/511, P. P. C. and sec tion 12/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The facts are that on 8‑10‑1982 complainant Muhammad Haroon who is a student of 10th Class had gone to Moolchand forest to hand over his business to herdsman Motan. After doing so he was returning when he was encountered near Bhada by Ghulam Muhammad, the present applicant who requested him to permit him to commit sodomy on him. The boy refused. After that Ghulam Muhammad caught him by arm and drew knife which was tied in the right leg and forced his Shalwar to be put off. As he did so the boy began crying and raising an alarm which attracted Muhammad Hasan and Ghulam Muhammad. On seeing them the applicant ran away. This hap pened on 8th of October 1982 while the F. L R. is lodged on 12th October, 1982. The late filing of the F. I. R. is due to the fact that the parties were expecting a Faisla at the hands of certain Nekmards. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Madad Ali Shah and Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad A. A: G. for the State and also Mr. Aftab Akhund for the complainant. The arguments of the learned A. A. G. are that the offence under Hudood Ordinance is punishable for life imprisonment and as such he opposes the grant of bail. Similar are the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Madad Ali Shah referred me to F. I. R. the true copy of which is filed alongwith the present bail application in which one Muhammad Ishaq who is said to be the brother of complainant Muhammad Haroon bad filed the F. I. R. under sections 457 and 380, P. P. C., had shown suspicion in F. I. R. against applicant Ghulam Muhammad and his father Abdul Sattar. The said F. I. R. was filed about a month before the filing of the present F. I. R. by the victim boy. It is clear that there does appear a grouse inter alia between the parties. The learned counsel has urged that the delay in filing the F. I. R. coupled with existence of enmity is a factor which entitles the applicant for the grant of bail and ultimately the case may not be proved, I feel that in the circumstances the applicant is entitled to bail released on bail furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000 and P. R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail allowed.