2013 PLP 335 (MLD)

RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, J.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that section 377, P.P.C. was added in the F.I.R. subsequently so inadvertently it could not be mentioned in head-note. The permission to add section 377, P.P.C. is allowed as such clerical mistakes can be corrected at any stage.

2. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.472 of 2011 dated 7-7-2011 Police Station City Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, under sections 365/367-A/377, P.P.C.

3. Allegedly Arslan brother's son of the complainant was coming on the Pacca road after playing in the School from where he was abducted by five unknown persons per force by pointing Pistol .30 bore towards him. He was taken towards Chak No.297-JB and confined in a room. Allegedly a sum of Rs.2,050 and mobile phone were snatched from him and threat to kill him was extended and thereafter he was thrown in the land owned by one Professor Aftab after tying him. Subsequently a supplementary statement was made on 10-7-2011 wherein an allegation of commission of sodomy was also levelled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 18 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner, complainant and victim reside in one Chak and are well known to each other so had they been involved in the commission of offence, they would have been nominated in the F.I.R.; that the allegation of subjecting Arslan to sodomy is not levelled in the F.I.R. and that the alleged victim was not medically examined.

4. Learned D.P.-G. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the victim was under threat so he did not disclose the names of the culprits and the commission of sodomy at the initial stage because the brother of the petitioner is a desperate person, who has been sentenced to death but subsequently narrated the events and the supplementary statement was immediately made; that the telephone data collected reveals that Arslan victim and Zeeshan Anwar petitioner had been making conversation with each other; that mobile phone of the victim was recovered on pointation of the petitioner Zeeshan Anwar and that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners falls within the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. The F.I.R. was lodged after 18 days of the occurrence for which no plausible explanation is given. The contention that the victim was frightened so he did not disclose the names of the petitioners and others and commission of sodomy cannot be accepted as reasonable explanation because before lodging the F.I.R., he remained for 18 days in his family. No allegation of commission of sodomy was levelled in the F.I.R. and for the first time this allegation was brought on the record through supplementary statement, which was recorded after 21 days of the occurrence and three days of the registration of the case. The victim was never medically examined. Admittedly, the petitioners, complainant and victim are residents of one Chak but they were not nominated in the F.I.R. All these facts lead to a single conclusion that the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the petitioners clearly need further probe. The case against them is of further inquiry within the meanings of section 497, Cr.P.C.

6. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. NHQ/A-200/L Bail allowed.