' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, Applicants Muhammad Zahid and Muhammad Nazeer are booked in Crime No.65 of 2011 under sections 376/380/ 506/34, P.P.C. Police Station Balouch Colony.
2. In the first place applicant applied for bail before 1st Addl. Sessions Judge. Karachi South who vide his order dated 31-5-2011 dismissed the bail application and against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed.
3. The case of the prosecution as set out in the F.I.R. Is that complainant Safdar Hussain who is resident of House No.735, Sector B. Manzoor Colony, Karachi got her daughter Mst.Sobia Nasim married with Muhammad Shahid. After marriage differences arose between the parties and finally divorce was pronounced by her husband to Mst. Sobia. It is stated in the F.I.R. That in the meanwhile mother-in-law of daughter of the complainant along with her two son-in-laws entered in his house and started beating, his wife and daughter with kicks and lists blows as such matter was reported to the police. It is also stated that on returned it was found that gold articles and cash Rs.35,000 were missing from the house of the complainant. It is further stated that daughter of the complainant disclosed to her mother that when she was at the house of her husband and marriage was subsisting, with her husband, two sons in law of applicant namely Zahid and Nazeer were brought by the applicant in her room, who one by one committed zina with her. However she did not disclose this fact to any one. It is stated that due to death of the mother of the complainant, he left for Punjab and on return present F.I.R. Was lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident took place on 18-11-2010 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 3-3-2011 after delay of four months. Counsel for the applicant says that delay in lodging of F.I.R. Has not been explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant and her in laws have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity between the parties as brother-in-law of applicants has divorced the daughter of the complainant. He further says that the story narrated by the prosecution in the F.I.R. Does not sound to logic as applicants being sons-in-law will never commit the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. In presence of their mother-in-law. He further submits that initially complainant tried to implicate the applicants and family of the in-laws of the applicants by lodging of F.I.R. For attacking the house of the complainant by the applicants and by the in laws of applicant and beating them but having failed in his objective, applicants and in laws of applicant have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case placed reliance on the cases of Zulfiqar v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1517 and Nasir Mehmood Khan v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 159.
5. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that the victim's statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded by Magistrate on 10-5-2011 in which the victim has fully implicated the applicants and their in-laws, however learned A.P.-G. Could not satisfy the Court with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R.
6. Complainant present in person has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has also adopted the argument advanced by the learned A.P.-G.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
8. It is settled position of law that at the bail stage deeper appreciation of the record cannot be gone into but only a tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether applicants are connected with the commission of offence or not. There is no material available with the prosecution which may support the presence of the applicants on the seen on the date of occurrence, except the statement of the complainant in the F.I.R which was lodged after a delay of four months. Both the parties had strained relationship as complainant daughter was divorced by her husband. In this back ground false implication of applicants in this case cannot be ruled out.
Statement of victim under section 164, Cr.P.C. Dated 6-5-2011 was recorded after six months of alleged incident hence it is of no =consequences at this stage. It is to be noted that alleged crime was committed during subsistence of the marriage but victim did not disclose this fact either to husband or the family members. In these circumstances this case requires further enquiry in term of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.100,000 each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.