' The petitioner, through this petition filed under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. Seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,105/95, dated 5-5-1995 under section 377, P.P.C. Read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Saddar Multan at the instance of Abdul Latif, for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature with Mst. Khalida Mai, seven years old, daughter of the complainant and caused kidnapping of the said victim in order to be put in danger and being subjected to unnatural lust.
2. The pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined vide order, dated 24-7-1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan.
3. The facts, in brief, of the prosecution story are; that on 5-5-1995 Mst. Khalida Mai aged about seven years, daughter of the complainant, along with other children went out of her house to play with them and did not come back for petty long time. The complainant set out in search of her along with Ghulam and Zafar Hussain and when they reached the house of Ramzan one Muhammad Saleem told them that he had seen Mst. Khalida Mai with the petitioner while going towards the garden. The complainant rushed to that place where they heard the cries of the victim and saw that the petitioner was committing carnal intercourse with her.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued his case that the investigation was previously conducted by the local police and the Investigating Officer found the petitioner innocent. Thereafter the investigation was transferred and the same was entrusted to Sh. Arshad Ali, D.S.P., who also found the petitioner not involved in the crime. The investigation, thereafter, was entrusted to D.S.P., Haram Gate, Multan, who had given his opinion that the petitioner was guilty of the offence. Further argued that, at present, the investigation of the case is being conducted by D.S.P. (HQ), who has not yet finalized it. He has argued the case with vehemence stating that the petitioner is innocent, he did not commit this crime and he has been falsely involved due to long standing enmity between the parties.
5. On the other hand, the pre-arrest nail petition is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant impetuously argued his case that the victim is only of seven years old. The petitioner committed a very heinous crime. The conduct of the petitioner is that he had filed his bail before arrest in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, where he did not turn up to appear and his petition was dismissed on that ground. The police has come to the conclusion that sufficient material was available on the record against the petitioner. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has brought to the notice of the Court that a case F.I.R. No,218/95, dated 12-8-1995 was registered under section 452/148/149, P.P.C.
Read with section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No,VII of 1979 at the instance of Mst. Mukhtar Mai, mother of the petitioner, against the complainant-father of the victim as a counterblast and has criticized with full vehemence, the conduct of the petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the record very minutely with their assistance. Years of age, a minor girl, to commit unnatural offence to greeting his lust. He was seen while committing the carnal intercourse with the minor and on seeing them he fled away from the place of occurrence. The minor was found at the venue of the occurrence naked, screaming and crying. The occurrence took place on 5-5-1995 and the victim was got medically examined on the same day. The F.I.R. Was lodged with promptitude leaving no room for the manipulation to set up a false case when the complainant or the other witnesses did not have any ,animosity against the accused person nor any material have shown. Even if the animosity exists between the parties, no man of ordinary prudence accepts mentally to put her minor girl at stake, to take the revenge from the opponent party. Apart from the promptitude of lodging of the F.I.R., the role of the accused had been particularized.
9. The perusal of the medico-legal report clearly reveals that Khalida Mai was .Objected to carnal intercourse. The, petitioner did not surrender himself before the Law Enforcing Agencies to prove his innocence, but he also did not appear in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the day when the bail application was to be heard.
10. Prima facie, to circumstances of the case supported by the eye- witnesses, are such that the petitioner is not entitled to have any extraordinary concession of bail before arrest, as he had, allegedly committed a heinous crime. C His case, otherwise, falls within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., the sentence of which has been described to life imprisonment.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, I am not persuaded to confirm the ad interim pre- arrest bail of the petitioner already granted to him. The petition has no force and the same is dismissed.