1985 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑-- ‑‑--‑S. 497‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 18‑‑Bail‑‑Prosecutrix in supplementary statement stating that accused had committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her, whereas in F.I.R. she only making mention of an attempt to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her by accused‑‑But prosecutrix giving a reasonable explanation for said omission in F. I. R.‑‑According to Doctor, prosecutrix had been subjected to intercourse‑‑Hymen of prosecutrix was found to be torn and tears were found to be fresh‑‑Prosecutrix not shown to have any motive to falsely implicate accused‑‑Case not found to be fit for grant of bail and bail refused in circumstances. Syed Almustafa Imam for Petitioner. Muhammad Bashir Mirza for the State. Nazir petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under Articles 10 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The F.I.R. was lodged by Mst. Nur Bakht wherein she alleged that on 3‑8‑1984 at about evening 'time when she was proceeding towards her house the petitioner forcibly lifted her to a room of his house, unstrained her Shalwar and attempted to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her. Her father Sadiq, Nur Muhammad son of Aadil and Nur Muhammad son of Amir got attracted to her alarm and on seeing them the petitioner fled away. After making the F.I.R., she made a supplementary statement to the effect that the petitioner had actually committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr with her but due to shyness she did not mention this fact in the F.I.R. as his father was present when the same was being recorded.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is delay of more than twenty‑four hours in making the F.I.R., the prosecutrix was medically examined seventy‑two hours after the occurrence and she made contradictory statements regarding the commission of Zina‑bil‑Jabr, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

3. I have gone through the relevant material. Mst. Nur Bakht is an unmarried girl. She was medically examined on 6‑8‑1984. Her hymen was torn and the tears were fresh. According to the doctor, she had A been subjected to sexual intercourse. It is the case of a single accused. The delay in the F.I.R. and the medical examination per se does not furnish any ground for the grant of bail. It is true that in the supplementary statement the prosecutrix stated that the petitioner had committed Zina‑bil‑Jabr, whereas in the F.I.R. she only made mention of an attempt but she has given a reasonable explanation for this I omission in the F.I.R. She is not shown to have any motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is not a fit case for the grant of bail. The petition is dismissed. H.A.K. Bail refused.