1. ORDER SALMAN HAMID, J.---According to the F.I.R. On 14-2-2010, complainant Munawar Ali lodged F.I.R. At the above Police Station narrating therein that Shaukat Ali Jatoi invited him and his were and children to attend an engagement ceremony in his house. The complainant's were Mst.
2. Naziran along with her children went to the house of Shaukat Ali around 9.30 on 10-2-2010. While the complainant was sleeping, his door was knocked around 3-00 a.m. In the morning when he saw that accused Shaukat Ali, Ghulam Rasool, Sajid and Irshad Ali (the present applicant) were standing there Shaukat Ali and Ghulam Rasool were armed with pistols and rest of the accused, including the present applicant were empty handed. Shaukat Ali, the accused, put his pistol on complainant's head and demanded him to come with him and see what has been done to his were. Upon reaching the accused house, complainant saw that her were was sitting stripped naked in bulb lit room. Complainant's children were also present. Shaukat Ali in front of the complainant, who was arms tied from the back, committed Zina Bil Jabr when other co-accused were also present. The complainant and his were Naziran and children were released in the morning. They remained under fear of threats, extended by Shaukat Ali and other co-accused, including the threat of making public/releasing of pornographic movie of Naziran, that was made by them. That F.I.R. Was lodged after delay of four days when Zahid Hussain, the complainant's brother-in-law encouraged and insisted that the F.I.R. Should be lodged.
3. It was also mentioned later by Naziran, to the complainant, which formed part of F.I.R. And her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. That when she had gone to attend the engagement ceremony on 10-2-2010 around 9-30 p.m. At accused, Shaukat Als house. She found that there was no women.
4. Shaukat Ali after pointing, pistol at her, stripped her clothes of.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in the light of above narration, as deduced from the F.I.R. States that there was a delay in lodging of F.I.R. Which gave the complainant ample time to concoct story and narrate the same before the police; that the present applicant was not involved in commission of the offence of Zina Bil Jabr and the same is directly attributed to Shaukat Ali only and that no role has been assigned to him and that the story narrated by the complainant is full of discrepancies and therefore require further enquiry. Under the circumstances, the learned counsel stated that a good case for bail has been made out. In support of his contentions the learned counsel for the applicant relied upon 1999 PCr.LJ 1109, 1988 SCM R 117; 2004 PCr.LJ 632; 1988 PCr.LJ 53 and 2003 PCr.LJ 1175.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the name of the applicant is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. And specific role has been assigned to him inasmuch as that he had fully facilitated the main accused in committing Zina Bil Jabr with Naziran, the were of complainant and that it can also be not ruled out that the movie was made by or with and and assistance of the applicant and that recovery of the movie camera along with the CD has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Under the circumstances it is not a case of further enquiry and that at bail stage the court has to make tentative assessm ent of the available evidence on record and nothing beyond that.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the case-law cited by him so also the arguments of the learned State counsel and also have gone through the file.
8. In the case of Ali Dino v. The State 1958 PCr.LJ 53 while granting bail, the point of delay in lodging of F.I.R. Prevailed upon the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan as no plausible explanation for such delay was given. In the present case, however, in my opinion, the delay has been sufficiently explained by the complainant and the fact that the story narrated by the complainant and victim Naziran prima facie supports the same inasmuch as that the movie camera with which the movie was made and the CD was recovered, which fact was not disputed at all by the counsel for the applicant. It was only stated by the counsel for the applicant that it is not in his knowledge that such movie camera and CD was recovered though the State counsel has read out the mashirnama before the Court of such recovery of movie camera and CD. The case of Shahdat v.
9. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1174 is also of no assistance to the applicant as in such case, again, the delay has been explained. The case of Shabhaz Farooque v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 633 is again of no assistance. In such case the accused was falsely implicated and the record showed that he was behind bars for the last more than a year and therefore, could have not been present at the time of Zina. In the present case as already mentioned above the applicant was actively involved in aiding and abetting the offence of Zina by Shaukat Ali with Naziran. In the case of Akhtar Hussain v. The State 1988 SCM R 117 the bail was granted on the ground that there was no case against the accused in the F.I.R. And therefore, he was enlarged on bail. In the present case in the F.I.R. As well as in 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim, specific role has been given to the applicant. In the last case i.e. Abdul Rauf alias Rauf v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1109 the bail was granted to the accused when the court reached to the conclusion that it was a case of further enquiry, whereas in the present ease since there is overwhelming evidence against the co- accused and the applicant, in my opinion no further enquiry is required.
10. Keeping, in view all the above, I am of the opinion that since the name of the accused is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R.
11. A as well as in 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of the victim and specific role has been assigned to him and that even the recovery of movie D and CD has been made which recovery has not been disputed or denied by the counsel for the applicant and only it has been mentioned that he is not aware of such fact though such recovery clearly finds mention in the mashirnama, no case of bail has been made out. It is well-settled by now that while deciding bail application, the Court has to make a tentative assessm ent of evidence and must not go deep into the E matter to explore what is not patently available. Since in the present case tentative evidence goes against the applicant his application for bail is refused..