2004 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 498‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(3)‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, refusal of‑‑‑Allegation against accused was that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with 11 years old daughter of his tenant‑‑‑Case had been registered at the statement of victim girl herself, who had no motive to involve accused in a false case‑‑‑Complainant and witnesses mentioned in F.I.R., had fully supported prosecution version‑‑ Offence was heinous and attracted provisions of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Case of accused did not qualify for concession of pre arrest bail. Murad Khan v. Fazal‑e‑Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82 ref. Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Petitioner. Muhammad Raees Akhtar petitioner has sought pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.238, registered at Police Station Dehranwala, on 5‑10‑2003, for offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.

2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with the complainant, who is aged about 10/11 years.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter was reported to the police after a delay of 24 hours; that the petitioner has been roped in a. false case due to a money dispute between the complainant's father and the petitioner; and that the witnesses were close relatives of the complainant.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the annexures. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with 11 years old daughter of his tenant. The case has been registered at the statement of the victim herself, who has no motive to involve the petitioner in a false case. The learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking pre‑arrest bail on 14‑11‑2003, thereafter the petitioner got affidavit of Munir Ahmad and Abdul Rasheed, brother of Abdul Hameed and Wali Muhammad father of Abdul Hameed attested on 24‑11‑2003. Photo copies of the same are available on the record of the case. None of the above noted persons have been mentioned as P.Ws. in the F.I.R., therefore, their affidavits have no relevancy in the case whatsoever. The complainant and witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. fully support the prosecution version. The offence is heinous and attracts the provisions of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The criteria for grant of pre‑arrest bail has been laid down by the apex Court in the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal‑e‑Subhan and another PLD 1983 SC

82. The petitioner's case does not qualify for the concession of pre‑arrest bail. Thus, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. H.B.T./M‑223/L Petition dismissed.