' Through this petition Nasir Mehmood petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,322 registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala on 18-7-2003 for an offence under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement Hudood) Ordinance of 1979).
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of three days. The case in hand is one of an attempt only which admittedly had remained abortive. The alleged victim had never been medically examined for an injury or a mark of resistance. It was never claimed by the complainant party that the clothes of the alleged victim had been torn during the alleged incident or that the clothes of the victim had been taken off so as to commit Zina or Zinabil-Jabr with her.
Admittedly no attempt had been made at penetration which is the basic ingredient of an offence of Zina or Zina-bil-Jabr. In these circumstances the question whether the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Attract the' provisions of section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 or the provisions of section 354, P.P.C. Is a question which surely calls for further probe and the same shall be attended, to by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial on the basis of the evidence to be led before it. It is available on the record that the petitioner had sustained as many as six injuries including some serious ones during the alleged occurrence and he had been got medically examined by the police itself. The petitioner has already advanced a counter-version of the alleged incident and in that regard a direction has already been issued by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 24-10-2003 requiring the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gujranwala to personally look into the counter-version of the petitioner and to verify the petitioner's stand in that regard. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner, is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.