' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.-Through this petition, petitioners, Muhammad Shaukat, Muhammad Aashiq sons of Peeran Ditta seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 321 of 2009 dated 6- 9-2009 registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan, under sections 376, 511, 452, 354, 109, P.P.C. On the complaint of Kaniz Mai wife of Manzoor Hussain, complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20-6-2009, sons of the complainant had gone to Multan in connection with their labour and she along with her two daughters-in-law namely Shaheena Bibi and Khurshid were present alone along with their children. About 5 p.m, both the petitioners/accused entered her house being armed with pistols, whereas, the co-accused namely, Abid Khera stood away. The petitioners accused torn out wearing shirt of said Shaheena Bibi after having found her alone and tried to commit Zina with her. On hue and cry, Khurshid Bibi, Manzoor Ahmad son of Nabi Bukhsh and Mushtaq Ahmad son of Elahi Bukhsh came there, who rescued her beseeching the petitioners/accused. In the meanwhile, another co-accused, namely Abid Khera kept standing at some distance in a modus operandi better detailed in the same.
Hence, this case.
3. Petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, which was entrusted to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Multan who vide order dated 7-10-2009 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that F.I.R. Is tainted with mala fide of the complainant as well as on the part of the police; further submits that the story of the F.I.R. Is entirely different from the facts narrated in the petition under section 22-A, Cr P.C. For registration of the case: learned Justice of Peace has passed order on 7-7-2009 while the complainant got registered F.I.R.
On 6-9-2009 after withholding the same near about two months; that father of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 filed private complaint before the Illaqa Magistrate which was filed on 1-7-2009; that F.I.R.
Was got registered with mala fide; that present petitioner No,1 assailed the order passed by learned Justice of Peace. Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, by filing Writ Petition No,6096-09 and order passed to look, into the matter specially with regard to Muhammad Ramzan accused court ordered to S.H.O. That after arrest of Muhammad Shaukat by the police, habeas petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan; that in Habeas Petition Muhammad Shaukat was recovered and no entry of his arrest was found in the Police Station; learned Sessions Judge, Multan, recommended to D.P.O., Multan for registration of case and case was got registered against the S.H.O. Bearing F.I.R. No,326/09; that at the instance of concerned S.H.O. Who is still there is a revenge and counterblast she manoeuvred the present complainant to register this case against the present petitioners and other co-accused that petitioner Muhammad Shaukat submitted an application before the learned Justice of Peace leveling allegations against S.H.O. For accepting bribe of Rs,30,000 on that application also order is passed by the learned Sessions Judge, for registration of the case with the Anti-Corruption Establishment.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R.
Occurred with specific role; that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Accused on account of application which were filed against the S.H.O.; that during the investigation present petitioner was found guilty; that pistol is yet to he recovered from the petitioner; that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage; that petitioners are involved in a heinous crime: that the offence is non- bailable and falls within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. It is admitted fact that after obtaining orders from the learned Justice of Peace, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, the complainant remained mum and did not take any steps to get the case registered immediately, he got registered a case after delay of near about two and half months: which is not explained by the prosecution side. The mother of the abductee, who was present in the court on court query, vehemently, denied that after delay of more than two and half months, the complainant started criminal proceedings at the instance of local police she replied in negative. She replied of her own initiative instant case is registered. Rape was not committed as there is only allegation of attempt to commit rape. Such a long delay gave rise to suspicion and mala fide of the complainant with the connivance of the local police. If A the complainant had immediately got registered the case after obtaining order from the court suspicion would not have arisen. The benefit of doubt even at bail stage would go to accused. Mala fide of the police is established from the facts that confrontation with the local police is established a case was got registered against S.H.O. For illegal confinement of some persons of complainant side. Allegation of attempt to commit rape is levelled only, rape was not committed. It is the true recovery of pistol is yet to be recovered from the accused petitioners, but pistol was not used, nobody is injured with the pistol, recovery of pistol is meaningless, there is only allegation of attempt to commit rape and rape not committed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 14-10-2009 is hereby confirmed. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, those will not prejudice of either side. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.