2014 PLP 190 (MLD)

MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.

Petitioner, Shahid seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.131 dated 28-4-2013, registered under sections 377, 337-J at Police Station, Peer Mahal, District, T.T.Singh.

2. Per F.I.R., on 25-4-2013, accused Shahid invited Zohaib at his residence through Kaka, co-accused and both the accused after intoxicating some tablets in the meal, committed sodomy with Zohaib and thereafter threw him near his house. Hence, F.I.R. in hand.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence; that there is delay of three days in lodging of F.I.R.; that case of petitioner is of further inquiry; that petitioner is being falsely roped in the instant case, so petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the contrary, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the instant petition with great vehemence by stating that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly F.I.R. was lodged with unexplained delay of three days. It is noticed that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with the allegation that petitioner along with co-accused mixed intoxicant in the meal of victim namely Zohaib, who after taking it became unconscious. Thereafter all of them committed sodomy with him on 25-4-2013, whereas it is an admitted position that before registration of criminal case, two medical reports were obtained. First examination of the victim was conducted on 26-4-2013 at 11-30 a.m. wherein the victim was fully conscious, well oriented with time and place and stated that he was call on dinner by Shahid etc. and after taking meal, they went to sleep and it was alleged that poisonous meal was given, whereas second medical examination was conducted on 28-4-2013 at 5-10 p.m. which does not support the version of the prosecution rather shows that on external examination, no abrasion, no laceration and no swelling is seen on anal area, on both elbows, back and both front of knees. It is also mentioned in MLR that an internal examination, no abrasion, no laceration and no swelling is seen on the internal area of anus. According to the contents of F.I.R., no eye-witness of the occurrence has been named out rather an unseen occurrence. The medical reports also seem paradoxical to the F.I.R. However, due to the contradiction in the F.I.R. and the Medico-legal Reports and having no direct evidence of occurrence, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.

6. For what has been discussed above, the trout ensemble is that petition in hand is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. MWA/S-111/L Bail grante