2026 PLP 905 (MLD)

MIran Muhammad Shah, J.

Through instant Bail Application, the applicant/accused namely, Shoukat son of Achar Jamali seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.13/2024, registered at Police Station Wahi Pandhi, Dadu for the offence under section 376-B, 34-P.P.C. Earlier bail plea of the applicant/accused was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu vide order dated 25.05.2024.

2. The facts of the case are mentioned in the Bail Application and the copy of FIR is also attached with the Bail Application, hence, needs not to reproduce the same here. Muhammad Shakeel v. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 458).

3. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused argued at length and contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and has not committed an offence as alleged in the FIR, the allegations are false, fabricated and concocted; that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant/accused is guilty. That the applicant/accused has nothing to do with the offence as alleged upon him, and even the applicant/accused has no concern with the commission of offence, but he is being dragged in this false and frivolous allegations. He has further contended that after lodgment of FIR, the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C has been recorded with the delay of more than two months and there is so many contradictions in statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C which were recorded with due deliberation and consultation, and creates doubt in the prosecution case; that the DNA test of the victim and applicant/accused has been received, which does not match, and there is no medical evidence against the applicant/accused, hence the case of applicant/accused has become one of doubtful nature and requires further inquiry, that the witnesses as shown are interested and no independent witness has been cited as mashir, that the applicant/accused is behind the bars since his arrest and no more required for further investigation. Lastly prayed that the applicant/accused may be admitted to bail as the case of applicant/accused is one of further inquiry. He relied upon the case laws reported as 2023 MLD 1072, 2022 SCMR 1447, 2022 YLR 2046, 2024 MLD 934 and 2023 SCMR 184.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application of applicant/accused and argued that the applicant/accused is involved in heinous offence, which fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. She has further contended that the applicant/accused is specifically nominated in the FIR, so also in the statements of PWs recorded later on, that the victim's age is about 9/10 years, that the ocular version of complainant party is fully supported by the medical evidence regarding commission of rape by the applicant/accused with victim baby girl. Lastly, prayed that the bail application of applicant/accused may be dismissed.

5. Heard and perused.

6. After hearing the counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned A.P.G for the State, it transpires that a young girl of tender age of 9/10 years was victim of alleged rape at the hands of the present applicant/accused. Cases of such nature are a menace of the society, where young girls become victim of the desperate minded criminals who find them vulnerable and easy pray to their lust. The case in hand shows that the present applicant/accused caused rape upon the victim with the help of co-accused as he hold the hands of the victim. The victim has categorically made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C, where she has fully corroborated the version of FIR despite going through the agony of cross-examination. Although the applicant/accused has allegedly accused the complainant party of some enmity, however, in such cases of enmity no allegations can be made which are a stigma and dishonor for the family and said ground does not attract the prudent mind. Even as per final Medico Legal Certificate issued from Taluka Hospital Johi states that she is victim of rape as per the final DNA analysis. Therefore, not only the ocular evidence, but the medical evidence suggests that she has become a victim of rape. No doubt, this is an unseen incident, but such incidents always tend to be done in an secluded area making it a case of un-seen incident. Usually in such a cases there is often delay in lodgment of FIR and its reporting because the family honor is involved. However, in this case in fact no delay has been caused and only one day in such cases delay has insignificant value. In such circumstances, where the offence is gruesome such as rape and an offence against the society at large, an offence that brings the female gender into the clutches of fear and harassment, lenient view cannot be taken especially at the bail stage because it has been found that once the alleged accused is released on bail at large he tends to bring the family and the victim under fear, which cannot be allowed under the parameters of the law of land. The case laws relied by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused are distinguishable and not applicable to the case in hand. Prima facie, the applicant/accused seems to be connected with the commission of offence and could not succeed in making out a case for bail. Therefore, I hereby decline this Bail Application. JK/S-38/Sindh Application dismissed.