This is a petition under section 497 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent viz. Syed Riaz Hussain Shah son of Liaqat Ali Shah caste Syed, resident of Chak No. 409/JB, district Faisalabad, vide the impugned order dated 29th June, 1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The respondent is involved in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 arising out of F.I.R. No. 103/148, dated 13th April, 1982 of Police Station, Kotwali, District Jhang.
3. The petitioner alleged to have forcibly abducted Mst. Shamim Akhtar, the prosecutrix, on 10th April, 1982 and subsequently subjected her to Zina-bil-Jabar. She was recovered from his custody by her relatives on 12th April, 1982 in the evening and on 13th April, 1982 she lodged the F.I.R.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, originally vide his order dated 31st May. 1982 declined the respondent's plea for bail after consider--ing the case on merits but subsequently, through his impugned order dated 22nd June, 1982 i.e. Only about 28 days after the previous order he admitted him to bail. It is stated in the impugned order that the fresh ground for reconsidering the plea for bail of the respondent was that the complete challan had been submitted in the Court and further that the two accused viz. Mst. Hakim Bibi and Liaqat Ali had been found to be innocent during the course of investigation.
5. It transpires from the perusal of the copy of the order dated 31st May, 1982 that even on that occasion, it was contended that Mst. Hakim Bibi and Liaqat Ali had been declared innocent by the Police as a result of investigation. The innocence of Hakim Bibi and Liaqat Ali, in the circumstances, could not be treated as a fresh ground. Submission of complete challan is by no stretch of imagination a. Fresh ground for considering the plea for bail of an accused which was earlier declined. In Ghulam Abbas Khan v. Zaka Ullah and 11 others (PL D 1976 Lah. 21.) it has been held that in cases which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years' R. I. Only completion of investigation is not a ground for grant of bail. In Muhammad Sarwar v. The State (1982 SCMR 257) it has been ruled that for purpose of bail, benefit cannot be given to accused simply on account of his co-accused having been found innocent. In Noor Mohammad v. Jan Mohammad and others (1982 P Cr. L J 935) it was found that once the learned Sessions Judge had rejected the bail after having considered the factual and legal aspect of the matter, he could not legally allow bail on a subsequent occasion after 12 days on the grounds which are not recog--nized by law.
6. In the circumstances of the present case, it transpires from the medico-legal report of the prosecutrix that marks of violence were found on her private parts, thighs, and breast, etc. Her hymen was torn and lacerated. She was found to have been subjected to rape and the result in regard to vaginal swa bs has also been received in positive from the Chemical Examiner.
7. As already observed, there was no justification to allow bail to the respondent within a month after declining his plea for bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case simply on the ground that complete challan was submitted and the two co-accused were found to be innocent as a result of Police investigation. Submission of complete challan and declaration of the co- accused being innocent as a result of Police investigation, are in no manner grounds for allowing concession of bail recognized by law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the bail allowed to the respondent b the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, through the impugned order dated 29th June, 1982 is hereby cancelled.