1. ' This is an application for hail moved on behalf of Shera Masih who has been booked for an offence under sections 376 and 318/34, P.P.C. Pertaining to an F.I.R. No, 104/88 registered at P.S. Manghopir District Karachi by one Barkat Masih. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the complainant's daughter Mst. Shagufta was given in marriage and the engagement was performed with one Salamat Masih son of the applicant and she used to visit his house. It is alleged that the complainant's daughter was subjected to rape and she has become pregnant but the fact was not disclosed by the girl to anybody. It is further alleged that Mst. Surriya daughter-in-law of the applicant was informed who arranged for tablets which the prosecutrix used and there was abortion and the dead body of newly-born child was thrown away somewhere. According to F.I.R.
2. This was disclosed to the complainant by his wife. Mr. Sardar Muhammad lshaque I arned counsel has appeared on behalf of the applicant and he has contended:-
(a) that there is delay of six months in lodging of report;
(b) that Mst. Shagufta was examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. And there are glaring in consistencies in her statement and F.I.R.;
(c) that S. 164, Cr.P.C. Statement of Mst. Shagufta was record .d on 4-10-1988;
(d) that the applicant is an aged old man of 65 years incapable of com itting sexual act.
3. ' Mr. A.G. Mangi learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the State. Mr. Mangi while resisting the application has not controverted the factual a pects and according to him there is prima facie evidence for offence under sectio 318, P.P.C. And reluctantly he has opposed the bail.
4. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel f r the applicant and I have been taken through the record by both the learned Advocates in the case, no doubt in her section 164, Cr.P.C. Statement Mst. Shagufta has given inconsistent statement and there are many infirmties available in the statement. It is stated by her in the statement that for the first time s e had disclosed the incident to her father on 25-9-1988 when the alleged occurred as shown in the F.I.R. Was as old as six months prior to the lodging of report . The perusal of the statement of Mst.
5. Shagufta appears unnatural. I find sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that no c other have been secured which Mst. Shagufta was wearing at the time of a legged incident. Although in her section 164, Cr.P.C. Statement she stated the t her clothes were stained with blood and semen and she also admitted that ev n the clothes were not shown to anybody by her and it is her case that there was no person present in the house of the applicant.
6. From the material inconsistencies and the infirmities it appears that the version of Mst. Shagufta is not tr e. In support of the contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the foil wing reported cases:-
(i) 1987 P Cr. L J 980; (ii) 1982 P Cr. L J 1202 and (iii) 1984 P Cr. L J 51.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel that Mst. Shaguft was engaged to the son of the applicant and since she was 23 years of age and she was of woman of easy virtues, therefore, the applicant had refused to take har as daughter-in-law as such the applicant has been falsely involved in this case The learned counsel has also referred to an affidavit filed in the trial Court as w 11 as before this Court which is sworn by Mst. Rehrnat Bibi the wife of the apple in which she has stated that she is 54 years of age and the applicant is about 65 ears of age and due to old age he was incapable of committing act of sex with her. None of the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant is controv rated and Mr. A.G. Mangi the learned counsel has ultimately stated that the of emcee under Section 318, P.P.C. Is not covered by the embargo where there's no evidence for the offence under section 376, P.P.C. As such he does not o pose grant of bail to the applicant.
8. ' The silence on the part of Mst. Shagufta and the delay in lodging f the F.I.R. Which is contradictory to the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Of Mst. Shagufta and the fact of old age I feel convinced that the contentions rais d by applicant's counsel are not without substance and in the above legal and factual aspects of the case I am inclined to extend the concession of bail to the applicant as the case calls for further inquiries accordingly I direct that the applicant be released on bail if he furnishes one surety in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
9. ' The Criminal Bail Application No, 1222 of 1988 is disposed of as above.