1. G. S AFDAR SHAH, J.-.The petitioner herein is presently facing trial under section 376/109, P. P. C. The allegation against him is that he committed rape upon Mst. Naeem Tahira at 4-30 p. m. On 18-3- 1978 in his house which was under construction.
2. The prosecution case is that Mst. Naeem Tahira and the sister of the petitioner, namely, Mst.
3. Shabana were trainees in the Progressive Centre at Nowshera ; on the day of occurrence, both of them, after the Centre was closed for the day, started together for their respective houses on the way, however, Mst. Shabana took Mst. Naeem Tahira to the house of the petitioner which was under construction ; that at about 4-30 p. m. Mst. Shabana, while leaving Mst. Naeem Tahira in a room of the said house with the petitioner, left for her own housethat thereafter when the laborers, who were engaged in the construction of the said house also left, the petitioner chained the door of the room from inside and committed rape upon Mst. Naeem Tahirathat soon thereafter when Mst.
4. Naeem Tahira came to her house she reported the incident to her mother and when her husband (the father of Naeem Tahira) returned to the house at about 6 p. m., he proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the F. I. R. Of the occurrence.
5. The order of the High Court would show that there existed on the record of the case sufficient material to connect the accused with the crime. ..Now this material consisted of the broken bangles of Mst. Naeem Tahira, some injuries received by her on her arm and knee and some scratches receiv--ed by the petitioner on his cheek. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the correctness of these facts. Furthermore, from the very room where Mst. Naeem Tahira was raped was recovered the chadar belonging to the petitioner which according to the report of Chemical Examiner was found to be stained with semen. In view of these facts, the learned Judge in the High Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same arguments before us which he had urged in the High Court. He contended that Mst. Naeem Tahira was major, was a consenting party and, therefore, it was wrong to hold that she had been raped. There is no force in this contention.
7. The various pieces of evidence, to which we have already referred, were there on the record of the case and were taken due notice of by the learned Judge in the High Court. Prima facie, therefore, the learned Judge was wholly right to conclude that the petitioner was connected with the crime.
8. In other words the learned Judge having exercised his discre--tionary jurisdiction in line with the well-established principles it is not open to this Court to interfere with his order.
9. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, that the learned Judge in the High Court should have avoided to observe that "ink this part of the country no woman moreso, when she is unmarried girl at the risk of her reputation, character and future life would take upon herself in making such allegations as are available in the F. I. R. Unless it is true and she has been a victim of such animal lust". All that we can say in this connection, however, is that the learned trial Judge would ignore these observations and would decide the case before him strictly according to the evidence. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.