The petitioners seek bail in a case registered against them and five others, vide F.I.R. No. 459/89, dated 16-12-1989 for the offence under section 354-A/379/342/336/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to the F.I.R., Abdul Latif, petitioner, armed with .12 bore gun and Muhammad Shafiq, petitioner, armed with revolver alongwith Muhammad Idrees armed with .12 bore gun, Atiq-ur- Rahman armed with a carbine, Abad Ali armed with Sota, Muhammad Bashir armed with .12 bore gun and were of Abdul Latif, petitioner, stopped Mst. Tahira Perveen in the way, on a `Lalkara' raised by Abdul Latif, petitioner No.1. Muhammad Shafiq, petitioner, physically held Mst. Tahira Perveen and started beating her. Thereafter, the accused dragged her to the house of Abdul Latif, petitioner, where were of petitioner No.1 pulled the hair of Mst. Tahira Perveen and tore her clothes making different parts of her body naked. Petitioner No.1 allegedly hit Mst. Tahira on her cheek. Muhammad Shafiq accused went on firing in the air with his carbine and hurling out threats that if anybody came to rescue Mst. Tahira, he would be killed. Abad Ali accused gave Sota blows to Mst. Tahira and rest of the accused gave her `Butt' blows with their guns. The injuries suffered by Mcr. Tahira are said to be simple in nature. Muhammad Bashir accused has been firing in the air apart from beating Mst. Tahira. During the process, the golden ear, rings of Mst. Tahira fell down which were picked up by were of Abdul Latif, petitioner No.1.
3. During the course of investigation, section 354-A, P.P.C. Was added. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners claims that the challan was prepared only under section 354/342/336/323/148/149, P.P.C.
4. The petitioners were released on bail by the learned Resident Magistrate, Gojra, vide his order, dated 21-2-1990. On an application filed by the State bail granted to the petitioners as well as their co accused was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh vide the order, dated 14-5-1990. Hence, this petition,
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that section 354-A, P.P.C. Has been deleted from the challan and at any rate, the facts brought on the record do not make out an offence under the said section of the Penal Code. He further submits that the other sections of the Code under which the petitioners are being challaned are bailable. Lastly, he submits that petitioner No.1 is a school, teacher and Muhammad Shafiq petitioner No.2, his younger brother and have been falsely involved in the case due to party faction. He submits that petitioner No.1 does not have front teeth in his jaw and cannot bite any one. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the accused are guilty of committing a heinous offence of disgracing a woman in public and causing a large number of injuries to her.
6. No doubt, the allegations contained in the F.I.R. Are serious and shock one's conscience. However, the bail petition has to be decided on the basis of the law and not the emotions. The petitioners if proved to be guilty during the trial, shall get suitable punishment in accordance with the law. The contents of the F.I.R. And the other material collected so far do not make out a case under section 354-A of the P.P.C. Section 354-A reads as under: "354-A. Assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes: Whoever, assaults or uses criminal force to any woman and strips her of her clothes and, in that condition exposes her to the public view, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."
To attest this provision of law, three conditions must be fulfilled:
(i) Assault with criminal force to a woman;
(ii) Stripping her of, her clothes; and '
(i.e) Exposing her to the public view in that condition.
The condition regarding, stripping of a woman of her clothes is fulfilled when the clothes are completely removed making her naked. If in this naked condition, she is exposed to public view, then the third condition is satisfied. In the present case, the second and the third conditions do not appear to have been satisfied. Exposure of 'some parts of the body of the injured lady was made inside the house. At any rate, the question as to whether the offence falls under section 354-A of the P.P.C. Or not shall be finally decided by the trial Court in the light of the evidence produced before it. As regards the offence under section 379, P.P.C., it is non-bailable but bail cannot be refused on the sole ground of its being non---bailable. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioners will either abscond, commit a similar offence or tamper with the prosecution evidence. If after the grant of bail, they misuse their liberty, in any manner, the complainant or the State would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of their bails.
7. I, therefore, accept this application and allow bail to the petitioners subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Toba Tek Singh.
8.- It is .Made clear that the observations made in this order are purely of tentative nature and shall not bind the trial Court. It may come to its independent conclusion regarding the, nature of offence in the light of the evidence brought on the record.
9. In the end, I may also observe that the Legislature should consider the propriety of amending the law and making the offence under section 354, P.P.C. Non-bailable and punishable by rigorous imprisonment for at least ten years with fine and stripes, If this is not done, women in our society would continue to live under the peril of being teased, tortured and disgraced at the hands of bad characters without the fear of serious consequences/punishment.