1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---By this common order, Cr. Bail Applications Nos, 843 and 1298 of 2017 are taken together arising out of the FIR No,726/2016 registered under sections 496-A/376/114/34, P.P.C. registered with K.I.A., Karachi.
2. Both, Mr. Zeeshan Haidar, Advocate representing the applicant in Criminal Bail Application No,843/2017 and Mr. Abdul Wahab Baloch, Advocate representing the applicant in Cr. Bail Application No,1298/2017 submitted that applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to animosity as both the parties are relatives. They further submitted that the FIR of present case is a counter blast of FIR bearing No, 25/2016 lodged by the complainant Mukhtiar Ali, the applicant in, Cr. Bail Application No, 843/2017, under section 365/342/376, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Dhabeji District Thatta, in which two sons of complainant of present case are nominated for committing rape of Badarunnisa alias Sana, the real sister of the abductee/victim Madina Fayaz, Both the learned counsel for the applicants emphasized on sole ground that medical evidence did not support the allegations as levelled in the FIR as well as statement of victim, Both the learned counsel contended that the FIR was lodged after eight days, which creates doubt and that there is contradiction in the FIR and depositions of complainant and P.Ws including the victim. The other grounds raised in the bail application appear to be of formal nature.
3. On the other side, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants. She submitted that medical report specifically speaks that the victim has been subjected to rape. She added that five out of eight- witnesses have been examined by the trial court and there remain only three witnesses which would be examined at an earliest.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State and I have also gone through the material available on the record.
5. Perusal of record reveals that the applicant Muhammad Nasir Khan is directly charged by name by the victim in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. for committing rape upon her while the allegation against the applicant Mukhtiar Ali, who is real brother of victim Madina Fayaz, is that he in collusion with co-accused had kidnapped the victim along with her children and left them at the house where applicant Muhammad Nasir Khan and other co-accused committed rape with the victim. She further stated in her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. that applicant Mukhtiar Ali, her brother had demanded Rs,5,00,000/- for our release through phone to her husband namely Fayaz. The recovery of victim from the secret place itself proves that victim Madina Fayaz was kidnapped and detained there, The contention that the applicants have been charged falsely with ulterior motive is also misconceived, because it is not possible for a woman to falsely implicate the accused in such an offence, which could remain a stigma not only for her life, but also for the whole family. It is a case of commission of rape and in this respect the medical report shows that victim was subjected to rape. Furthermore, two vaginal swabs and sample of blood have been sent to FSL and DNA test, for verification and report in this regard are still awaited and non-availability of such report does not entitle the applicants for the concession of bail. Report may be relevant but not the sole criteria for the grant of bail and in the case of Muhammad Naveed v. State (2000 SCM R 150) in same circumstance the apex Court refused leave to appeal against the bail dismissal order.
6. The offence of Zina is of moral turpitude which can destroy the entire psychology of a woman/victim by putting her and her family to public shame. It is a stigma with which her whole family has to face with and is the most hatred crime. The offence of Zina is offence not against the individual only but it is also against the good conscience of the society. Scanning of record reveals that in her statement the victim has fully involved the both of the applicants. The false implication of applicants/accused by the victim without any cogent reason and sufficient cause has not been asserted. It is settled that for deciding the bail application the court has to observe the tentative assessm ent and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required and it will not be fair to go into discussion about the merits of the case at this juncture. In this respect reliance is being placed on the cases of Saleh Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 211) and The State v. The Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 163).
7. Suffice it to say that there are sufficient material, more particularly medical evidence is available on the record against the applicants/accused, therefore, it cannot be said that applicants have been implicated in fabricated, concocted and unbelievable case. Consequently, the bail applications, having no merits, are hereby dismissed.