1. The applicant is charged with the commission of forcible unnatural offence upon the complainant who is said to be aged about 14 years. The in--cident is alleged to have taken place in a grazing ground on 6-4-1978 at 3-30 in the afternoon. According to the allegations of the prosecution the victim was given lathi blows by the applicant and overpowered to submit to unnatural offence.
2. After the act, it is alleged two P. Ws. Muhammad and Nooroo arrived at the scene and were related to the incident by the victim.
3. However the matter was reported to the police on the next day i.e. 7-4-1978 at 9-15 a.m. And the distance from the Police Station is six miles. The complainant in the F.I.R. Has endeavoured to explain the delay by alleging that his father came back home late in the night and therefore the report was lodged next day.
4. The Medical Report of the examination of the victim reveals that sodomy was committed upon him and that there was one injury near the anus of the victim. There were several lathi injuries and a bite mark on the face and back of the complainant. It appears that the applicant/accused was arrested on 7-4-1978 at 1 a.m. His shalwar was secured by the Investigating Officer, in presence of mashirs and was found to bear semen marks.
5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there is inordinate delay in filing of the report and there is no adequate explanation forthcoming for having reported the matter late by about 18 hours. It is then contended that even the medical certificate does not fully support the prosecution version, in so far as according to the Medical Officer the offence seems to have been committed between 10 to 15 hours from the time of medical examination which was conducted. According to the F. I. R. The offence took place about 19 hours before that time. It is lastly contended that the prose--cution has not obtained the medical examination of the applicant/accused. In this connection learned counsel has invited my attention to the observations in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence in which the learned Author opines that in order to come to a positive and definite finding it is necessary to have the active agent medically examined. The applicant also alleges false implication due to enmity.
6. Learned Asstt. A: G. Has opposed the application. He submits that the name of the accused appears in the F. I. R. And the witnesses fully support the prosecution. Lie further contends that at this stage the medical evidence as to the factum of sodomy having been committed upon the victim as con--firmed by the medical certificate is prima facie sufficient to establish the offence.
7. He also relies upon the circumstance that trousers of the applicant were found stained with semen.
8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The contention that the applicant's medical examination was essential to procure the circum--stantial evidence to connect him with the offence has force and it is not clear why the Investigating Agency failed in securing this evidence. The prosecution may be able to support the case with the evidence of eyewit--nesses but at this stage, having regard to this circumstance, the applicant's case clearly requires further enquiry at the trial as far as his guilt is concerned. I have also been informed that applicant is a young boy of about 18 year but the learned Asstt. A:-G. Is unable to confirm this. In any case the aforesaid circumstances clearly entitle the applicant to bail.
9. Accordingly I grant the bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety and P. R.
10. In the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge,