1989 P Cr (PLP)

The petitioner, Muhammad Boota, has moved this petition for bail after arrest under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. in a complaint case filed against him under section 302/201, P.P.C. and section 10/11 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, pending in Court of Mehr Muhammad Altaf Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.

2. The facts are that the complainant Muhammad Afzal in the first instance gave information to the police or 23‑3-1988 at about 10/11 a.m. vide report No.15 disclosing that he was away from house to take bath on the village well when he heard the noise from the house of Saddique Masih and he immediately went at the spot and found Manzoor Masih and Umar Masih present there. They were busy in breaking open the door of the room of Saddique Masih. It was further stated that smoke was coming out from the locked room. They succeeded in breaking open the door only to find that Mst. Rehana was already lying burnt to death. According to them, Mst. Rehana had committed suicide and that nobody was at fault. In the report it was also mentioned that the room was belted from inside and nobody else was found inside the room. Saddique Masih, father of the deceased was satisfied with the information given by Muhammad Afzal to the police. However, after the expiry of about two months, on the instigation of the enemies of the petitioner, said Saddique Masih filed a criminal complaint showing that the petitioner had committed rape upon the deceased in his absence and later on he murdered her by pouring kerosine oil on her person and thereafter setting her on fire. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the complaint and has also recorded the preliminary evidence. The petitioner has been summoned as an accused person anti bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000 were also issued against him vide Annexure `B'. The petitioner appeared in Court and was granted pre‑arrest bail. However, the interim bail allowed to the petitioner was recalled and he was taken into custody and sent to judicial lock‑up, vide order, dated 19‑12‑1988.

3. The learned counsel contends that the police thoroughly investigated the case and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was innocent. The learned counsel maintained that there is evidence available to show that the instant case is a case of suicide and that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner was in any way involved in the commission of the crime. The learned State counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Their ease is that Mst. Rehana has been done to death by the petitioner and there is sufficient evidence to that effect.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The. contention is that if really the witnesses were present at the spot as claimed by them, they could very easily interfere and could save the unfortunate girl from being raped and ultimately being put to death. It is next contended that occurrence as stated by the complainant in the complaint cannot possibly happen and that this has created considerable doubt in the story of the prosecution. This is not the stage to give opinion one way or the other. Suffice it to observe that the admitted position in the case is that in the first place the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the deceased Mst. Rehana actually committed suicide. This police investigation was also affirmed by the Superintendent of Police, City, Lahore. The investigation of the police in the case was never challenged by the complainant anywhere. He remained silent for more than two months with clear indication that he had no grievance with the police investigation. In the circumstances, the delay in the institution of the criminal P complaint becomes considerably significant. The complainant was under law bound to explain the delay which he wholly failed to do so. According to the learned counsel the delay, therefore, creates doubts on the credibility of the case. In my view, this is a case of further enquiry. Prima facie there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant and the State had not been able to persuade me to withhold the concession of bail to the petitioner. This is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Lahore. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within two months without fail. The trial Court shall not at all be influenced by what has been said above in this bail order. S.A./M‑1320/L Bail granted.