Petitioner Atta Muhammad, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 143, dated 30.9.2005, offence under Section 18/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979, registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari for the allegations of attempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr with Razia Bibi-complainant, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely roped in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. There is nothing on record connecting the petitioner with the offence alleged against him. There is unexplained delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained properly and casts serious aspersion of the prosecution story. Further contends that no marks of scuffle between the complainant and the petitioner were found. No medical report is on the file showing marks of violence on her body, which also speaks a volume of malafide and ulterior motive against the petitioner. The so-called Shalwar, which was alleged to be untied by the petitioner, was not produced before the police, which further makes the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. Also contends that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners does not fall within he prohibitory clause of Section 497 (1) Cr.P.C. In this regard, reliance is laced on Muhammad Bashir vs. The State [1996 P.Cr.L.J. 813 Lahore], unsaf Khan vs. The State [NLR 1993 SD 126], Muhammad Asif alias uhammad Ilyas vs. The State [2004 SD 1174] and Tahir Abbas alias Babar di vs. The State [2001 M LD 1559 Lahore], therefore, petitioner deserves the oncession of bail.
3.Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by earned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application contending That the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of ttempting to commit Zina-bil-jabr with the complainant. The offence is heinous in nature, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the concession of ail.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the ecord, it manifest that the only allegation against the petitioner is that on the day of occurrence, the petitioner pushed the complainant into cotton crop and removed her Shalwar in order to commit sexual intercourse against her wishes. On raising her hue and cry, witnesses arrived at the spot and she as saved from being dishonoured. It is yet to be determined whether removal of complainant's Shalwar by the petitioner amounts to attempting to commit rape or the same falls for outraging the modesty of a girl punishable under Section 354 P.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Neither the petitioner nor the complainant (victim) was medically examined by the police, which makes the petitioner's case that of further inquiry.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.