1. ' DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, J.---The applicants have assailed the impugned order of the learned trial Court, dated 28-8-2007 whereby the bail was refused to the applicant.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Zarbano, aged about 25 years is the stepmother of complainant. Complainant owns an agricultural land situated near their houses in which crop of sugarcane is cultivated and the womenfolk of the complainant, used to cut grass from there. On 7- 7-2007 Mst. Zarbano went for grass cutting purpose, when at about 9 p.m. On her cries complainant, his relatives Ramzan and Ali Hassan jointly went there and saw that applicant Ali Muhammad alias Rustam was naked while trouser of Mst. Zarbano was taken off and she was under the applicant and applicant was over her and was trying to commit rape with her.
3. Complainant party raised cries whereupon applicant while taking his clothes disappeared from the scene. Thereafter Mst. Zarbano disclosed that as she was cutting grass and the applicant Ali Muhammad alias Rustam while cutting belt of her trouser was attempting to commit rape with her, as such the complainant along with said witnesses went to his nekmard Sikandar Chand and narrated - above facts and thereafter on his advice, he lodged F.I.R.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a dispute between complainant and the applicant over matrimonial affairs, that the F.I.R. Has been delayed for 7 hours without plausible explanation; that material collected by the prosecution so far as well as contents of the F.I.R. Reveal that neither marks of violence have been noticed on the body of victim nor there is any medical evidence/certificate placed on record in order to prove that any attempt to commit rape was made with the alleged victim; even otherwise alleged trouser or cut belt have not been procured under mashirnama; that the main star witnesses of the incident namely Muhammad Ramzan and Ali Hassan while recording their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements during the course of investigation have not implicated the applicant. If there is any evidence that is hear-say in nature only which is not admissible: that the star witnesses are not the eye-witnesses who have not seen the incident; statement of victim Mst. Zarbano is contradictory in nature and not corroborated with the contents of F.I.R.; that the investigation of the case has already been completed and the challan of the case has been submitted before the Court of law; the applicant is behind the bars since his arrest on 7- 7-2007 without trial; that there is no reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence but there is sufficient grounds for further enquiry which entitled the applicant for grant of bail as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. He relied upon the case of lftikhar Gui and 2 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1130 and an unreported order passed in Cr,B.A. No,S-70/2004 Abdul Latif v. State.
5. ' Learned Assistant Advocate- General has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant has attempted to commit rape as at the time of incident both were in naked condition.
6. He suggested to examine the victim thereafter he may move such bail application.
7. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General and perused the material available in the case file and gone through the case-law. Admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged after the delay of seven hours without any plausible explanation; that the eye- witnesses have not supported the version of the complainant and the victim in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.; that the evidence if any is hearsay in nature which is not admissible; both the P.Ws. Muhammad Ramzan and Ali Hassan are related inter se; the allegation against the applicant as spelt in the F.I.R. Are vague, ill-founded and general in nature; the story as set up in the F.I.R. Is not believable which is also not Asupported by the eye-witnesses; on the one hand there is an allegation of cutting belt of Shalwar (Izarband) and thereafter attempt to commit rape was made whereas as per F.I.R. applicant was undressed whereas the trouser of Mst. Zarbano was taken off and she was lying under the applicant while the said applicant was over her and both were naked; it is surprising that when they were caught red-handed, the P.Ws. Muhammad Ramzan and Ali Hassan have not apprehended them. Admittedly there is no mark of violence on the body of the victim Mst. Zarbano; further no semen was found in the vaginal swabs and the same were not sent to Chemical Examiner. In the circumstances it would be very difficult to connect the applicant with the alleged incident. No independent evidence is available against the applicant whose case for the purpose of bail is arguable. There is B admitted enmity between the applicant and the complainant party. The allegation against the applicant is vague, ill-founded and general in nature. Case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, are fully applicable. I am of the opinion that the case of the applicant requires further enquiry, which entitled him for the grant of bail. Bail to the applicant is accordingly granted subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, one lac and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.