After dismissal of post-arrest bail application by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan, vide order dated 20.10.2006; the petitioner has approached this Court for bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No. 332 dated 10.8.2005, registered under Section 10. Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station Gulgasht, District Multan.
2. The allegation against the .petitioner as narrated in the F.I.R. is that he committed "zina bil jabr" with Ashraf Mai aged 15/16 years who remained silent for some months just to save her honoured.
She became pregnant and thereafter, the matter was reported to her parents and other persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is delay of 8/9 months in lodging the F.I.R., that barring the statement of alleged victim there is no other evidence against the petitioner available on file. He has further contended that during the investigation the petitioner has been found innocent.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the accused had committed a heinous offence and he remained absconder.
5.I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. in cases of zina has never been given so much importance as normally the aggrieved parties avoid to report such like matters to the police in order to save their honour. Allegation leveled in the F.I.R. are fully corroborated by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which cannot be brushed aside early. As far as the plea of declaring the petitioner as innocent is concerned, that is mainly based upon a decision dated 8.9.2006 by an arbitrator namely Nazar Abbas. The criminal cases are always decided on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of the decisions of arbitrators. Even otherwise, the opinion of the police is neither admissible in evidence nor binding on the Courts.
7. The pregnancy which was conceived by the victim due to the act of the petitioner whereby, he satisfied his sexual lust, materialized into the delivery of a child on 11.8.2005. At the time of occurrence, victim was a virgin girl aged 15/16 years. Future of the victim, who is un-married girl as well as newly born baby, prima facie, seems to have been ruined. In view of the statement of the victim, pendency of the matter of D.N.A. test, according to my humble view, would not entitle the accused to bail.
8. There is yet another aspect of the case which disentitles the petitioner the right of bail, is his absconsion. The case was registered on 10.8.2005 but he 'could not be arrested before 7.4.2006.
During this period, he was declared absconder after necessary proceedings in the shape of Section 87 Cr.P.C. The challan was submitted under Section 512 Cr.P.C. During said period, once the petitioner was allowed pre-arrest bail, but said application was dismissed due to his non- appearance. It is settled law that noticeable absconsion deprive the accused from his normal rights and bail can be refused keeping in view the absconsion of the accused. Fugitives from law are not deemed to be at part with the other accused. Reliance in this regard is placed upon "PLD 1985 SC 182". There are reasonable grounds available on the record to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.
9. For all the reasons stated above, the petitioner is not found to be entitled to grant of bail and as such, the petition in hand is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.