1. ' The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicant/accused is facing , trial before the Sessions Judge Hyderabad under sections 342, 354, 337-F(i) and 337-A(i), P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R. No.7 of 2003 of Police Station Phuleli, Hyderabad.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant 'Khair Muhammad on 10-2-2003 are reproduced hereinbelow in extenso.
3. "My complaint is that I live at the address given above and on 6-2-2003 there was a marriage ceremony of the son of Fakir Gulab Manganhar and I had gone there alongwith my family members and after the function of marriage was over at 0200 hrs. In the night I could not find my daughter Moomal. I kept on looking and searching for her, and at 0400 the girl was found near the Kazi Abid School. She was unconscious and was in injured condition. We brought the girl to our house where we saw that she had injuries on the arm and also on the left side of the cheek and head. On gaining the consciousness she disclosed that she was taken forcibly by Shafquat alias Gagoo son of Zulfiqar and Raheel son of Master Imdad Siyal on motor bike, she did not want to go with them but they took her forcibly and thereafter in Dhobi Ghat which was in Bhitai Nagar they handed over her to one girl and went away. After some time my girl raised cries and asked them to take her to her house. The girl also asked her that she had not seen her house, let Gagoo and his accomplice come and then she would be sent back with them. After considerable delay Shafquat alias Gagoo and Raheel came and they tried to console her by saying that they would get her clothes and golden necklace and asked the girl to put off her shalwar and thereupon the girl started weeping and asked them to take her to her house. They put some perfume on her face and again she went unconscious and did not know as to what happened. After regaining the unconsciousness she was feeling pain in her body. On 8-2-2003 I went to Police Station and obtained letter for quick medical treatment of my daughter Moomal., I decided that after her treatment, I would lodge the report. I consulted with Naikmard of the Mohalla Imtiaz Hussain son of Lal Muhammad Shaikh and brother Ahmed Ali son of Muhammad Khan Panhwar resident of AllandadChand Jo Goth who advised me to lodged report at the Police Station and now have come here to lodge the report that the above said accused persons had taken away my daughter aged 7-8 years and kept her in wrongful confinement and tried to commit Zina. They also maltreated her. Justice be done."
4. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant.
5. He has relied upon the case of Abdul Malik v. State (PLD 1968 SC 349), Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh (1998 SCM R 570), Taja v. State (1975 PCr.LJ 1265) and Gul Muhammad v. State (1974 PCr.LJ 400).
6. ' I have also heard Mr. Nisar Ahmed Unar learned counsel on behalf of complainant and Mr. Riazuddin Siddiqi learned counsel appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate-General for the State. Both the learned counsel have opposed the bail plea of applicant/ accused.
7. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the minor girl aged about 7 years was abducted by the applicant/accused party. They after causing grievous and simple injuries to the girl of tender age attempted to molest her. The injuries on the person of victim are corroborated by medical certificate. Nothing has been placed on record from which it could be said that the case is outcome of enmity or any prosecution witness is biased against the complainant party. So for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Or recording of 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of prosecution witnesses is concerned is not sufficient for grant of bail in each and every case. In this context I am fortified by the decision of apex Court in the case of Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State reported in PLD 1997 SC 547. Moreover, it is well settled that for the purpose of bail detailed evaluation of evidence cannot be made but only tentative assessment is warranted by law. Merely because offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case. The authorities relied upon by the learned. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused ardistinguishable from the fact and circumstances of the present case.
8. Resultantly the application for bail stands dismissed.
9. ' At this juncture Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Soomro learned counsel for applicant/accused requests that trial Court may be directed to dispose of the case as early as possible. Order accordingly.