' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDAR, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,107 of 2008, dated 12-5-2008, registered under sections 376/511, P.P.0 at Police Station, Ahmad Yar District Pakpattan.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Is that he had tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the sister of the complainant while she was working out in the fields.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case stands registered against the petitioner because of previous enmity between the parties. No medical examination was ever conducted regarding the commission of an offence. No marks of violence were present at the body of the victim, which could prove the fact that attempt was made on her. He further submits that sections 376/511, P.P.0 are not attracted in this case as there is no evidence on record except for those witnesses who are closely related to the victim, therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the cases reported as Atta Muhammad v.
The State (2007 PCr.LJ 1149), Muhammad Asif alias Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (2004 YLR 378), Tahir Abbas alias Babar Ali v. The State (2001 M LD 1559).
4. Learned DPG opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that it is a promptly lodged F.I.R. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of commission of heinous offence of Zinabil-Jabr. He has referred to the eye-witness account narrated by Jehangir, Khadim Hussain and the victim Nusrat Bibi who had involved the present petitioner with the commission of offence in their statements recorded by the I.O. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. Recovery of broken string as well as Shalwar and torn shirt was also effected from the victim. He further submits that there exists no enmity between the parties to falsely implicate the petitioner with the commission of an offence.
Offences under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation. He lastly submits that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever on the part of the complainant to get false case registered against the petitioner while exposing his sister to the commission of an offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R with specific role of commission of heinous offence but I am afraid evidence available on record is not confidence inspiring for the reason that it is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. That two eye-witnesses of the occurrence who had categorically stated in the F.I.R. That they had seen the occurrence with their own eyes and one of those being real brother of the victim stated that he had seen the petitioner dragging his sister and tried to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with her. This part of the story of the F.I.R. Seems implausible, irrational and unbelievable because it is practically not possible for a brother to stand like a silent spectator when modesty of her sister is being outraged. Moreover, there is another eye-witness Khadim Hussain, who was also present at the place of occurrence and both the eye-witnesses could have easily apprehend the petitioner when he was, especially, empty handed, therefore, it does not appeal to one's mind that occurrence had ever taken place. Simply recovery of broken string, Shalwar and shirt could not connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence until and unless it is corroborated by the independent witnesses. No medical examination of the victim was conducted in order to establish the marks of violence on her body. Hence, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is more plausible regarding the previous enmity between the parties that possibly the petitioner could have been involved in this case because of the enmity, therefore, sections 376/511, P.P.0 are prima facie not made out against the petitioner as per facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
' Petition stands disposed of.