' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ramzan alias Shamma, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,389 of 2006, dated 19-9- 2006 registered under section 12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 read with section 377, P.P.C. At Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pak Pattan Sharif on the application of Muhammad Adeel, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that on 10-9-2006 at about 8- 00 p.m. He took the complainant in his house and committed sodomy with him after offering him intoxicant Pepsi Cola. Then the petitioner took the complainant/victim on a car to different places and put him in semi-conscious condition. The petitioner repeatedly committed sodomy with him.
However, the victim/ complainant on 16-9-2006 while finding an opportunity succeeded in running away from the custody of the petitioner. Hence this case was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the occurrence of alleged abduction had taken place on 10-9-2006, but the F.I.R. Was got registered on 19-9-2006 with the delay of 9 days without any explanation in spite of that the complainant claimed to have reached his house on 16-9-2006; that report of the Chemical Examiner is negative and medico-legal report also does not confirm that the sodomy was committed with the victim in the present case; that earlier case had been got registered by Muhammad Zaman brother of the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,412 of 1998, dated 26-9-1998 under sections 324, 365, 337-A(i), F(v), F(vi), 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif in which both the legs of the petitioner were broken by Muhammad Nazir and other accused who are influential persons of the area and involved in other bad activities and they have hired the victim/complainant and managed registration of this case against the petitioner to pressurize him as the criminal case which is pending since 1998 has now reached at the final stage; that Pir Muhammad Hussain the alleged eye-witness of the abduction has sworn an affidavit before the learned Additional Sessions Judge stating therein that he had not witnessed the incident and other eye-witness Muhammad Ashraf son of Sajwara was co-accused of Nazir Ahmad accused in the said case F.I.R. No,412 of 1998 got lodged by the brother of petitioner; that the petitioner is aged about 47 years having three daughters and two sons, who is residing with his parents in a joint family system and it was an improbable story that the petitioner had kept the boy for sodomy for seven days in his custody, but during this period the parents of the victim- boy had never approached the police to report the matter and that it is a case of further inquiry and covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that one Rashid Ahmad son of Ismail (retired Naib Subedar) had appeared on 19-9-2006 before the police and stated that his son Kashif Naeem was also trapped by the petitioner and he was habitual to commit sodomy, whereas Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. Has also mentioned the same story against the petitioner; that the offence falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that challan has been submitted in the Court and there is every likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future; that the victim/complainant had no previous enmity with the petitioner and he had also no connection with the accused involved in a case of murderous assault upon the petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. In the present case the incident had allegedly taken place on 10-9-2006, but the F.I.R. Was lodged on 19-9-2006 with the delay of 9 days without any explanation. The medico-legal report and report of Chemical Examiner do not confirm that the sodomy was committed by the petitioner with the victim. There are only statements of two witnesses i.e. Pir Muhammad Hassan and Ashraf, who got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Before the police that in their presence the petitioner had taken the victim/complainant to his house. Out of them Pir Muhammad Hassan P.W. Has sworn an affidavit that he had not witnessed the incident and his name has wrongly been introduced as witness in the present case. As far as Ashraf P.W. Is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of judgment dated 1-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, while disposing of case F.I.R. No,12 of 1998 dated 15-1-1998, according to which Ashraf son of Sajwara witness in the present case, was co-accused with Nazir Ahmad accused. The brother of the petitioner got registered criminal case F.I.R. No,412 of 1998 against said Nazir Ahmad and others for causing injuries to the petitioner. The said case is admittedly pending trial for the last 8 years. The possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out as the learned counsel has pointed out that the said case has reached the final stage and the accused therein are pressurizing him for compromise. It seems to be an improbable story that the petitioner had kept the victim with him for 7 days, but in the meanwhile no report was lodged with the police. Except for the statement of the complainant, there is no incriminating evidence available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The petitioner is about 47 years of age having three daughters and, two sons residing' with his parents in a joint family system. The veracity of the statement of the complainant, which is not supported by the medical evidence will be seen by the learned trial Court after the conclusion of the trial. For the time being, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry. Mere submission of challan into the Court is not a ground for refusal of bail to the accused, who has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19-9-2006 without any progress in the trial and his further detention in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution in any manner.
' For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.