1. ' Applicants Gul Bahar and Abdul Ghafoor seek bail who are facing trial in Crime No,129 of 2004, registered at Police Station, Taluka for an offence punishable under section 18, Zina Hudood Ordinance. The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order dated 5-10-2004.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that on 10-9-2004, complainant Haji Ghulam Ali Bhutto appeared at police station alleging therein that on 5-9-2004, he, his `puphat' Mir Muhammad, `Masai' Abdul Majeed, his wife Mst. Zuhra Khatoon and his Want' Shaharbano went to visit the tomb of Syed Yousuf Shah Jilani when at mid night, they all were sitting. Out of them of complainant's wife namely Mst. Zuhra Khatoon and his 'Masat' Shaharbano went to make water in the nearby lands, when they heard commotion. Complainant party rushed there and identified on the light of torch as Abdul Ghafoor, Gulbahar, Shafique and Sulleman were trying to commit Zina with both the ladies who were denuded by them. It is further alleged that on the challenge of the complainant party all the accused persons decamped towards graveyard. It is further alleged that due to non-availability of conveyance, complainant party remained there and on the following morning, went to his nekmard Sardar Aamir Khan Bhutto, who was out of station and on his arrival complainant narrated the facts to him and on his advice he lodged F.I.R. To the above effect.
3. ' The investigation followed and in due course, the applicants were sent up to stand trial in the competent Court of law.
4. ' Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay of five days. It has also been contended that it is surprising to note that complainant has given the correct names of accused persons with their parentage as well as addresses which show that the applicants and co-accused were already known to the complainant party but they have been falsely been implicated due to enmity. It is further added by the learned counsel that offence at the most is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the longest term provided for that offence, or with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes or with such fine as, is provided for the offence, or with any two of, or all, the punishments. Lastly learned counsel has contended that the allegation against the applicants is general in nature and no specific role has been assigned. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicants lastly argued that it is a fit case where the applicants could be enlarged on bail.
5. ' Mr. M.I. Bhutto learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State concedes to the grant of bail and raised no objection.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material placed on record with the assistance of learned State counsel.
7. 'Admittedly F.I.R. Is delayed by five days and no plausible explanation is forthcoming. The only role attributed to the applicants is general in nature and no specific part has been assigned. Specific names along .With their parentage are given by the complainant party showing that both parties are known to each other and in this situation false implication of the applicants' cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, bail is granted to the applicants subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (One lace each) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. ' Crl. Bail Application No,S-674 of 2004 stands disposed of.