' A case under section 342/506/109/377/511, P.P.C. And section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against Ishfaq Ahmad and Bilal petitioners and others on 17-9-1989 on the statement of Shaukat Ali with Police Station Sheikhupura Saddar vide F.I.R. No,1010/89. The precise allegations against the petitioners are that they confined the complainant in a godown, of the Factory known as Pakistan Leminates, Sheikhupura on 16-9- 1989 and thereafter they alongwith their three co-accused made continuous attempts to commit sodomy with him. On an alarm raised by the complainant, Mirza. Altaf Hussain and Abdul Hafiz reached the spot and rescued him from the clutches of the accused. Bail has been refused to the petitioners by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 2641-1989. The contention is that the petitioners have been implicated in the case on account of their trade union activities inasmuch as the complainant is an official of the factory management. The petitioners are in jail since 6-9-1989. Learned Law Officer, learned counsel for the complainant and the State have opposed the bail relief to the petitioners. They submit that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.
With a specific role in the commission of the crime. The investigation is complete and shortly challan against the accused shall be submitted before the learned trial Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have read the record carefully. There is delay of one day in the lodgment of the F.I.R. And that the complainant has wholly failed to explain the delay. The question whether the complainant was confined in a go down of the factory by the petitioners or not is a question, which shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence during trial. The fact that the complainant was not examined by the doctor to find out as to whether he suffered some injuries during the alleged attempts made by the petitioners for the commission of sodomy with him is admitted by the learned Law Officer. The non-examination of the victim by doctor creates doubts about the allegation of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintains that the two petitioners were specifically examined by the doctor and were found fit to perform sexual act and as such in view of this background, the examination of the complainant becomes extremely necessary. The learned counsel urges that the petitioners have been implicated in the case falsely because of their trade unions activities. Despite the fact that the petitioners are in jail for the last more than three months, their trial has not concluded as yet.
Keeping all these facts and circumstances in view, I find it a fit case for further inquiry. The petitioners are therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,80,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate Sheikhupura.