Having failed to get the post-arrest bail from the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jatoi, Muzaf fargarh through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the same relief in case FIR No. 485/19 dated 17.10.2019 registered u/S. 376(i), PPC at P .S. Shahar Sultan, Muzaf fargarh.
2. The complainant Rabnawaz set the machinery of law in motion while alleging in the FIR that in the night between 14 & 15.10.2019 one Mukhtar along with four unknown accused persons committ ed rape (zina bil jabr) with Mst.
Sharam his daughter-in-law while entering into his home, hence, the instant FIR.
3. Pro & contra arguments heard.
4. On perusal of record, it transpired that the present petitioner is not nominated in the FIR rather he was implicated through a supplementary statement allegedly made by the complainant, on 24.10.2019 in which no source of involvement of the present petitioner has been given by the complainant. Even after the arrest of the petitioner he was not subjected to test identification parade. The other aspect of the case is that Mukhtar co-accused, who is nominated in the FIR with the specific allegation of rape with the victim has been let off by the police u/S. 169, Cr.P.C. as insuf ficient incriminating material was available against him. The buccal sample of die petitioner was secured by the prosecution for DNA analysis, but the report submitted by the PFSA is negative in nature as far as the involvement of the present petitioner is concerned. The crux of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim herself made statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate on 01.11.2019, wherein she has implicated the present petitioner in the alleged crime, but the learned Law Officer apprised the Court that the same is not part of the challan. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 27.10.2019 and report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. has already been submitted on 01.11.2019 before the learned trial Court, but since then there is no progress in the trial. So, under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period without determining his guilt.
5. In a sequel to above, this Court found that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner , calls further probe into his guilt within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
6. Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed, and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.