2003 PLP 1848 (MLD)

Allah Ditta and Allah Bakhsh, the petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.221 dated 12-11-2002 initially registered under section 354, P.P.C. with Station, Danewal District Vehari. Later on the police have substituted section 354-A, P.P.C. for the same.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 28-9-2002 at about 12 noon they and their co-accused Allah Rakha and Ashiq have made Mst. Zareena Bibi, the wife of the complainant all naked in a public thoroughfare and in that condition exposed her to public view and had also committed indecent acts with her.

3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that there is inordinate delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R. without any reasonable explanation; that the occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R. had not taken place at the venue mentioned therein; that the offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. is not attracted in this case and the same has been applied to make the offence more graver; that nobody from the vicinity has supported the allegation of complainant as contained in the F.I.R. and hence the case against them falls within the purview of further inquiry as envisaged by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.

4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that there is reasonable explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the same is not at all fatal to the prosecution case in any way; that from the facts and circumstances of the case the offence under section 354-A, P.P.C. is attracted in the same and the same is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; and that the only evidence of Mst. Zareena Bibi is sufficient to connect them with the crime and hence it does not make any difference, if they have manoeuvred affidavits of some of the P.Ws.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.

6. They are named in the F.I.R. They allegedly alongwith their co accused on the above said date, time and place had made Mst. Zareena Bibi, the wife of the complainant, all naked in public thoroughfare and in that condition exposed her to public view and committed indecent acts with her. There is some explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The question of it's reasonableness or otherwise is a matter of deeper appreciation of evidence, which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage. However, any further comment on this aspect of the matter may be prejudicial to either of the parties at trial.

7. There is on record the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Mst. Zareena Bibi. The same is almost in the line of the F.I.R. They on the basis of the same alone are prima facie connected with the alleged offence.

8. The procurement of affidavit of some of the witnesses is indicative of an attempt on their part to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

9. The offence is not only heinous in nature but also covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P.C.

10. Hence, I see no ground to enlarge them on bail at this stage. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. H.B.T./A-853/L Bail application dismissed.