' M. BILAL KHAN, J.- Muhammad Iqbal son of Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Hussain son of Shah Din, the petitioners, seek post-arrest bail in case F.LR No, 94/2007 dated 27-2-2007 registered with Police Station Jauharabad district Khushab for an offence under Section, 302/34 P.P.C.
2. The occurrence forming the basis of F.LR had allegedly taken place on 30-3-2006, Whereas F.I.R was recorded oil 27-2-2007 i.e, eleven months after the alleged incident on the order of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
3. The ease of the complainant Mst, Rasheeda Bibi wife of Nawab Din, as it unfolded in the F.I.R was that on 30-3-2006 early in the morning her 14-year-old daughter Mst. Rukhsana had been subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by the petitioners and she was also beaten up, as a result of which she became unconscious \ it was with great difficulty that she could reach home where she narrated the incident; Shah Din Lumberdar and Ghafoor Member prevented registration of case; during this while Mst. Rukhsana died as a result of the violence and the sexual abuse to which she had been subjected; on account of the merciless murder of Mst. Rukhsana, Shah Din Lumberdar and Ghafoor Member promised to give her (complainant)'two pieces of land and forcibly caused her burial; she (complainant)and her husband asked Shah Din Lumberdar and Ghafoor Member to fulfil the promise about plots of land, whereupon a false case was got registered against her husband for allegedly burning down wheat belonging to Muhammad Akbar son of Boota and got him locked up at Police Station Jauharabad; during investigation, her husband was found to be innocent and was let off; she (complainant) and her husband again demanded the promised land from Shah Din Lumberdar and Ghafoor member on which they got angry. Apart from this, the F.I.R also contains woeful accounts of alleged atrocities committed after 30-3-20G6, against the complainant and her family. However, for the purpose of decision of this bail application, the said incidents/ allegations are not very relevant and need not be mentioned in detail.
4.After registration of case on the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners were arrested on 2-3-2007 and are in custody ever since.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Waseem, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Saeed Ashraf Warraich, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Mushtaq A.S.-I. Of Police Station Jauharabad district Khushab, with record.
6. It has been observed that the case had been registered eleven months after the alleged incident. It is on record that during the course of investigation the petitioners had been found to be innocent and a cancellation report of the case had been prepared, however, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not agree with the cancellation report. A perusal of the order dated 10-7- 2007, whereby post-arrest * bail. Has been refused to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the consideration which had heavily weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioners, was that on 22-2-2007 the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing in the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had stated that case against the petitioners had been registered, whereas in actual fact the case had been registered on 27-2-2007. One fails to understand how this misreporting or misstatement at best on the part of the Law Officer could be pressed into service against the petitioners.
7. On a minute perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, one can read between the lines that he shrank from his responsibility to allude to the merits of the case and proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioners on trivialities, which were unrelated to the controversy involved. The reasons for this approach on, the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not difficult to uncover i.e the case had been registered on the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to comprehend that directions issued by Superior Courts for registration of criminal cases are never meant to deprive or divest accused persons named therein of their legal right and to close all avenues of relief to them.
What the learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to appreciate was that such accused persons are fully entitled to their remedies provided to them by or under the law. If the intention behind issuance or sending out of such directions was to be construed otherwise, then there would be no need even to hold a trial in a case registered at the command of a Superior Court. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is conspicuous by the absence of any comment on the real merits of the case. It has also been noticed that the delay of eleven months in lodging the F.I.R. Had prima facie not properly been explained, inasmuch it had never been the case of the complainant or her husband that the police had declined or refused to register the case. What has been averred in the F.I.R. On the other hand, is that they had never been allowed by the influential persons of the village to lodge a report with the police. I am restraining myself from making any further comment on this aspect of the case, lest the same may have any bearing on the merits of the trial. It is also on record that cause of death of the unfortunate girl could not be determined. Examining the case in its totality from all angles, especially keeping in view the belated F.I.R., non-determination of the cause of death and opinion of innocence in favour of the petitioners rendered by the Police, their case is pre-eminently one of further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.