' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Ghulam Yasin, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,204 of 2006 dated 19-7-2006 registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan in respect of offence under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story as unfurled in the F.I.R. Lodged at the instance of Mst. Sajida Bibi, complainant is that after the death of complainant's father her mother namely Waziran Bibi remarried Ghulam Yasin, petitioner. After the said marriage the complainant along with his brother started to live with her mother and stepfather i.e. The petitioner, who allegedly ravished her virginity. She went on to state, that during her stay with her mother the petitioner had been committing rape with her off and on. On her resistance he, statedly, used to extend threats to her. She further alleged that later on with a view to sweep his horrendous affairs under the carpet, the petitioner got her married with his younger brother namely Bashir Ahmad but during her said matrimonial 1ife also the petitioner used to commit rape with her. According to the complainant, ultimately, she left the abode of the petitioner and started to live with her other relatives. With said allegation the above mentioned F.I.R. Was got registered. After remaining unsuccessful in getting post-arrest bail from learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, the petitioner has approached this Court for the said relief.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that,the petitioner is as innocent as lamb; that no occurrence as alleged by the prosecution has ever taken place and the prosecution story is nothing but a cock and bull story; that no date of occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the case has been registered against the petitioner as a counterblast to an F.I.R. No,127 dated 22-5-2007 lodged against one Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen, a close relative of the complainant, at the instance of the petitioner under section 489-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Shujaabad; that during the investigation the complainant/victim was not medically examined and therefore, a case of further inquiry is made out in his favour entitling him to bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the grounds that a very heinous offence had been committed by the petitioner and that the offence committed by the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. After hearing the arguments put forth by both;the parties I have straightway noticed that no date of occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R. It has been further noticed that apart from solitary statement of the victim herself there is no direct evidence of rape against the petitioner. During the arguments learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has candidly admitted that during investigation the victim was not medically examined. It means that the solitary statement of the complainant/victim is not being supported by medical evidence. Admittedly the petitioner had got a case registered against one Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen under section 489-F, P.P.C. Before lodging of present F.I.R. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the said Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen is in fact pursuing the case on behalf of the complainant. To strengthen his argument, he has pointed out the presence of said Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen in the Courtroom. The documents appended with this petition also, prima facie, support the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner whereby he has contended that the mother of the victim had filed a habeas corpus petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan and Mst. Sajida Bibi, complainant was produced before the said Court on 5-5-2006 by the above mentioned Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen. While making her statement before the said Court the victim had not deposed the story of her having been made victim of Zina-bil-Jabr by B petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a copy of suit filed by the victim against the petitioner and others including her mother.
The contents of the said suit also indicate that the petitioner had not levelled the allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr against the petitioner in said suit. Similarly in the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the victim against her husband Bashir Ahmad, who is brother of the petitioner, no such allegation was levelled by the complainant/victim.
6. Epitome of all the discussion made above clearly shows that a case of further inquiry, within the meaning ,of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., into the guilt of the petitioner is made out which entitles the petitioner to bail as a matter of right. Besides that it has been noticed that the petitioner is suffering pre-trial punishment since 24-8-2006 and despite the expiry of a period of 10 months the charge has not yet been framed.
7. To put in a nutshell, a case for grant of post-arrest bail has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. Before parting with the order I would like to observe that the findings returned in this order would not prejudice the learned trial Court which is directed to conclude the trial within two months positively.