1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Noor Muhammad, son of Jaffer (Applicant) is booked under F.I.R. No,217 of 2009 of Police Station Dock for offences punishable under sections 364-A, 354, 109 and 376.
2. Pakistan Penal Code and Women Protection Act, (F.I.R.).
3. ' Per F.I.R., the applicant on 8-6-2009 circa 6-00 p.m. Came at Dilawaran's (Complainant's) house; snatched 6 months Mehwish (infant), took her to his house and called her (Complainant) to come to him otherwise he would kill the infant. Complainant went to applicant house where the applicant expressed his intention to marry her (Complainant) which was denied and thereafter the Complainant was raped by the applicant.
4. ' In backdrop of the above narration of events, as available in the F.I.R., learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and the allegations of kidnapping and rape have been raised to implicate him in a false case. It was also argued that there were no independent witnesses of the alleged offence; ground of delay in lodging of F.I.R. Was also raised. It was also asserted that the applicant is behind the bars for more than two years and only four prosecution witnesses till date have been examined. It was also mentioned that the evidence that has so far come on record is full of material contradictions and therefore the applicant is entitled to bail. To support his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the cases of Safdar Ali v. The State (2004 YLR 49), Muhammad Sharif v. The State (2005 PCr.LJ 113), Nasir Mehmood v. The State (2004 PCr.LJ 1259), Salma Bibi alias Pappo v. The State (2004 YLR 307), Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) and Dost Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1996 Lahore 217).
5. ' The learned APG vehemently opposed and resisted the bail application and argued that the applicant is involved and is charged with a heinous offence against humanity. It was also argued that medical and chemical reports are against the applicant wherein it was clearly mentioned that human sperms were detected in veginial slide which was based on chemical as well as laboratory findings. The reports already show that the complainant was subjected to the act of sexual intercourse. Therefore it was asserted that since there is a medical evidence available against the applicant, coupled with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which so far has clearly implicated the applicant in commission of the offence, he is not ,entitled to bail.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. It may first be noted that the various citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant were on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. To which suffice to state that though in the present case there may be a delay of couple of hours but it Would be evident from the chemical report that the complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse and the report is positive in such regard which goes to the detriment of the applicant, more, particularly when complainant was a widow. Since there is overwhelming evidence available against the applicant, the ground of delay as raised by the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case becomes immaterial. The other authorities those were cited by the learned counsel were with regard to benefit of doubt and its advantage to the accused at the time of bail. It may be noted that again since there is overwhelming evidence available against the applicant, which prima facie connects him with the offence, benefit of doubt looks remote. Coming to other ground that applicant is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in the case, suffice to observe that no motive is shown as to why the complainant would implicate him in such a heinous case where her own chastity was put at peril and was jeopardised. The ground of innocence raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was a long short, which otherwise was not available to him and is therefore cannot be appreciated by this court.
7. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the applicant is not entitled to the bail and the same is hereby dismissed.