' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---The petitioner has applied for post - arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 163 of 2001, dated 27-5-2001 under sections 363/364-A, P.P.C. And under section 12 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Liaqatabad, District Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Kaneez Fatima submitted application before police that on 25A-2001 Asif alias Dhamaka, Manzoor alias Bola (petitioner) and Babar son of Javaid took away her son (Aurangzeb) in a rickshaw for committing sodomy upon him. He raised alarm but accused threatened him with dire consequences and Manzoor alias Bola could not control the rickshaw, therefore, leg of zeb was fractured and then accused took him (Aurangzeb) toChildren Hospital, Lahore. On her application present case was registered against the petitioner and his co- accused and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 16-1-2004. Hence this application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is delay of 32 days in lodging the F.I.R. But the sanie has not been explained by the complainant, which'makes the prosecution story doubtful. He contended that main accused (Asif alias Dhamaka) and Babar son of Javaid, co-accused are already on bail. He further contended that vide order, dated 26-5-2005 passed by this Court, trial Court was directed to decide the case within two months but the case is still pending as Asif alias Dhamaka became absent and trial Court has issued warrants for his arrest and that now case is fixed for 18-1-2006 for his attendance, hence petitioner deserves concession of bail. He has argued that petitioner is rickshaw driver and he has no concern with the abduction of Aurangzeb and that he is not previous convict.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in F.I.R. And that he along with his co-accused abducted Aurangzeb (complainant's son) for committing sodomy upon him.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused abducted Aurangzeb (complainant's son) for committing sodomy upon him. Asif alias Dhamaka was allowed bail on 6-11-2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Babar, co-accused is already on bail. There is unexplained delay of 32 days in lodging the F.I.R. And petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the same. According to report submitted by learned trial Court, Asif alias Dhamaka became absent during trial, therefore, warrant for his arrest has been issued and now case is fixed for 18-1-2006. On 26-5-2005 learned trial Court was directed to decide the case within two months but due to absence of Asif alias Dhamaka the case is still pending. The petitioner is in judicial lock up since 16-1-2004 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner no P.W. Has been examined so far. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. So application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However if petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would Abe competent to cancel his bail.
Theobservations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.