2007 PLP 421 (MLD)

SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.

The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.546 of 2004, dated 13-9-2004 under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Nishtar Colony, Lahore.

2. As per F.I.R. on 31-8-2004 Faisal son of Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Samar took Muhammad Naeem (complainant's nephew) in a car and committed sodomy upon him. The case was registered on 13-9-2004 at the instance of Zulfiqar Ali and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 4-12-2004. Hence this bail application.

3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 13 days in lodging F.I.R. and the same has not been explained by the complainant, which makes the prosecution story doubtful.' He contended that petitioner is not named in F.I.R. and that Nadeem nominated him in supplementary statement on 29-10-2004, therefore, the case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. He has argued that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 4-12-2004 but challan has not been submitted in Court so far, therefore. The deserves concession of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that on 31-8-2004, he along with his co-accused took Muhammad Nadeem with them and committed sodomy upon him. The petitioner is not named in F.I.R. Muhammad Neem, S.-I./Investigating Officer who is present in Court states that on 29-10-2004 Muhammad Nadeem made supplementary statement that inadvertently he mentioned the name of accused as Afzal because actually his name is Amjad alias Afzal. However Investigating Officer states that in fact Afzal and Amjad are two different persons and Afzal had joined the investigation but he was found to be innocent. In view of above the case of petitioner is that of further enquiry. There is unexplained delay of 13 days in holding the F.I.R. and petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 4-12-2004 but according to learned counsel for the State challan has not been submitted in Court so far. In these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.80,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The observation made in this order would not prejudice case of any party during trial. H.B.T./M-679/L Bail granted.