S.M.ZUBAIR, J.--The petitioner who is involved in a case under Section 377 PPC and Section l2 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No. 215, dated 7.8.1993, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R, is that he alongwith his co-accused committed un-natural offence with the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter was reported after three days delay which remained un-explained. The medical report does not support the prosecution case as the Chemical Examiner did not find any semen in the anal swabs of the victim. No blood stained clothes were taken into possession which could have proved the prosecution case. In the end, he submitted that section l2 of offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance VII of 1979, is not attracted to the facts of this case, at the most, Section 377 PPC could be attracted but that too could not be proved in view of the lack of the evidence, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. He has placed reliance on PLD 1967 S.C. 363 PLD 1965 F.S.C. 404,1985 S.C.M.R. 1822 and 1986 S.C.M.R. 533.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application on the ground that the doctor observed redness on the anus of the victim and opined that he has been subjected to sodomy. He further contended that the matter was reported after a delay of three days which was explained in the F.I.R, itself and the semen could not be detected after three days due to the passing of the stools, hence the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is sufficient material on the record to connect the petitioner prima facie with the crime in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the State mentioned above, hence there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, so this bail application is dismissed.