' IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Shujaat Ali, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 217-2007, dated 10-3-2007, registered under sections 452, 292, 506, P.P.C. And 29, Telegraph Act, at Police Station South Cantt., Lahore, on the application of Ali Raza, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner is that he had made video of the complainant's daughter, who was his class-fellow, of the scene while using the bathroom and then sent the same to different persons through E-mail. The petitioner also blackmailed the daughter of the complainant while sending her different messages of the threats.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was class-fellow of daughter of the complainant and due to this reason, he has been falsely involved in the present case as no other person could be traced during the investigation by the prosecution; that all the recovery witnesses are police officials and alleged recovery was effected in violation of section 103, Cr.P.C. That Camera allegedly recovered from the petitioner, has no function of video film; that the story of the prosecution is improbable and offence does not fall within ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
3A. The counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that during the course of investigation, offence under section 458, P.P.C. Has been added, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And recovery of electronic devices had been effected on his pointation which prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of crime; that the trial in the main case has already been commenced and case was fixed for recording of evidence on 22-5-2007, but it was adjourned on the request of learned defence counsel; that the petitioner also used to make obnoxious telephone calls and send threatening messages to the family of the complainant through different E-mail address, who is not entitled to be released on bail as he has not only spoiled the career of young virgin girl but also caused damage to her whole family and made them shameful.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General has contended that the police during the investigation has collected sufficient material from the Internet Company which is sufficient to prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged crime; that it was a case of unique nature committed while using the electronic devoices, which have been recovered during the investigation and there was no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case for the disgrace of his class-fellow.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The petitioner is alleged to have made a video of the complainant's daughter of the scene in the bathroom of her bedroom while using advance technology and then sent the same to different persons familiar to the complainant. It is claimed that the petitioner had access to the house of the complainant previously being class-fellow of the victim daughter of the complainant. According to the police record, the electronic devices used for the coverage of alleged nude scene of the complainant's daughter have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner along with a C.D.
Containing said movie. The Investigating Officer explained that according to the record of the Internet Company "WOL" the petitioner remained connected A through the telephone connection in this house with the computer attached with the telephonic connection installed in the name of the complainant, which prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. No mala fide has been alleged on the part of the complainant for the false implication of the petitioner by putting the chastity and future carrier of his young virgin girl. The petitioner is involved in a case of shameful act and is not entitled for the grant of bail merely for the reason that the offences do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner falls within the exceptions and I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of such accused.
' Resultantly, this bail petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.