' Upon written application of Mst. Tahira Batool, widow of Shahbaz Shah, aged about 16/17 years an F.I.R. No,444 of 2003 was formally registered on 1-11-2003 by the police of City Police Station, Lodharn, under sections 16/10 (3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, read with sections 365/452/354/342, P.P.C. Sajjad Hussain Shah who was arrested in the aforesaid case, filed an application for grant of bail after arrest before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran but could not succeed on 8-6-2004, hence this bail after arrest petition in this Court.
2. The abridged facts which are found from the above noted F.I.R. Are that Mst. Tahira Batool was married to Shahbaz Shah and about six months ago he had met with accident and expired on 5- 9-2003. After the death of her husband, Mst. Tahira Batool was residing in the house of her deceased husband. On 3-9-2003 Sajjad Shah (petitioner) armed with Pistol, accompanied by Razzaq Shah and Syed Baggo Shah (father and brother-in-law of the petitioner respectively) came to the house of the informant in white coloured Suzuki Car and trespassed into the residential house of the informant. The accused and his accomplices dragged her from her house, boarded her in the car although the witnesses who reached therein, tried to get the informant released from the clutches of the accused yet upon threat of Sajjad Hussain, accused who was laced with fire- arms deterred the other witnesses to come forward. It is alleged in the aforesaid F.I.R. That accused Sajjad Shah took away the petitioner to a place of a Mouza, where the petitioner and his accomplices pressurized the informant to alienate her share of land in favour of them, but the informant refused to bow to their dictates. During the night after threatening her, the petitioner denuded the informant, and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her, which acts continued up till 18-9- 2003. When she had become semi unconscious, the accused threw her outside her father's house.
3. The motive alleged in the aforesaid F.I.R. As noted above was to grab the inherited property, of the informant which had devolved upon her, from her husband and the accused wanted to get that property from her by hook and crook. When the informant resisted to their design, they resorted to the above noted offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that occurrence had allegedly taken place on 13-9-2003 but was reported through F.I.R. On 1-11-2003. So there was a considerable delay which had made the whole story incredible. The informant was not medically examined, so there was no corroborative evidence. It has further been stated by the learned counsel that the police has found Sajjad Shah innocent and had reported to the learned Iliaqa Magistrate for the discharge of the accused 'petitioner from the above noted case but the learned Magistrate had directed the police to file the report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In the Court. But, the police has made cancellation report and is going to file it before the learned Magistrate concerned. As per learned counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 8-6-2004 and since then he is in judicial lock up, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant has stressed that the informant who was a young girl of about 16/17 years, was defiled by the accused/petitioner who was an influential person and the F.I.R. Was got lodged after the order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. To snatch the agricultural land, which has been inherited by the informant all the heinous crimes have been committed. It has further been stated by the learned counsel that the opinion of the police is not binding on the Court. That the police is siding with the accused, whereas helpless informant is a poor helpless girl, having no sources at her command, who had got the F.I.R.
Lodged after great efforts. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has also opposed the grant of bail after arrest.
6. The hearing of arguments and perusal of the record zealously, have revealed that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role has been attributed to him by the informant. No cogent reason has been adduced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why a young girl of 16/17 years of age would A ruin her future by levelling such bold allegations of commission of heinous offences. She has deposed so clearly and loudly in the F.I.R., against the petitioner, that the inherent quality of the narration itself, prima facie, rings truth. It has not been argued by the petitioner's counsel that the girl was of easy virtue. So there appears prima facie no reason to disbelieve the story as has been put forward by the informant. The admission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has got the share of lands left by her deceased husband, does not entitle, ex facie, the accused for grant of concession of bail at this stage. There appears reasonable grounds of the involvement of the petitioner in this case. So the assertion of the learned counsel that the police has A discharged the accused and is going to forward the cancellation report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., it would suffice to say that ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the Court, as cited by the learned counsel for the informant vide the decision reported in NLR 1980 Crl. 607 Muhammad Irshad and other v. The State. So, I have not found any reasonable and cogent ground, at present, to grant the bail after arrest to the petitioner. Consequently, his bail petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner can move fresh application for bail after report is submitted to the competent Court under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., after recording of some evidence or of fresh grounds becoming available to the petitioner, in the learned trial Court, if he so desired or advised.
Bail .