' The petitioner has been charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 5/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 506, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No, 53, dated 25-3-1995 lodged in Police Station Phulra, Tehsil and District Mansehra. His bail petition in the first instance, was rejected by S.T.M./M.I.C., Mansehra vide his order, dated 12-4-1995.
Thereafter he approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Mansehra for the redress of his grievance.
The Sessions Judge by his order, dated 18-4-1995 also rejected his prayer for bail Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mirza Abdullah Jan, Advocate contended that in the case in hand the F.I.R. Was lodged after a considerable delay inasmuch as the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at Degarwela, on 24-3-1995, whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on the next day, on 25-3-1995 at 12 noon, in spite of the fact that the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 17/18 kilometers from the police station. He, therefore, stated that on this score, alone, the prosecution case has become highly doubtful and thus of further inquiry. He next contended that the story contained in the F.I.R. Is belied by the P.Ws., examined under section 161, Cr.P.C., thereby demolishing the entire prosecution case. The learned counsel further stated that the medical report is defective in its nature and hardly inspires confidence because it has not been disclosed as to when the complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner/accused and that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner was in fact capable of performing sexual intercourse at the relevant time, that the Investigating officer had not bothered to get the petitioner medically examined in this regard. He also drew my attention toThe statement of P.W.
Mst. Shameem, wife of Muhammad Maroof, recorded on 5-4-1995 under section 164, Cr.P.C. And submitted that she has made improvements between her statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And under section 164, Cr.P.C. Respectively. He accordingly prayed that the petitioner's case is that of further inquiry and that he be released on bail.
3. On the other Hand, the learned counsel for the State, Sardar Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate, and the learned counsel for the complainant, Qazi Shamsud-Din, Advocate, contended that in the very F.I.R.
The delay (of about 16 hours) in lodging the F.I.R. Has been reasonably explained and that is that the elders of the village were trying to patch-up the matter between the parties. They further stated that since the matter could not be settled amicably, therefore, the complainant was forced to lodge the F.I.R. According to them there was nothing on the file to suggest if there was any or enmity between the victim (complainant) and the petitioner (accused) which could instigate or motivate her to charge the petitioner falsely, without any rhyme or reason, for such an heinous offence/crime. They stated that no reason exists and none indeed has been made out as to why a respectable young and unmarried lady would disgrace herself as well as her entire family by lodging such a frivolous report.
4. I have gone through the record of the case with some degree of care and am of the considered view, without dilating upon the merits of the case at this stage, that the reason for lodging the report, after a lapse of 16/17 hours, has been duly and reasonably explained in the circumstances of this case. There is nothing on the file to suggest that the complainant who is admittedly an unmarried young girl of 16/17 years of age, has any ulterior motive or enmity to implicate falsely, the petitioner for committing such heinous crime. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that no respectable lady would lodge a false report where not only her own honor but the honor of her entire family is at stake. There Is also no doubt that the petitioner alone is charged, directly, in the F.I.R. And, that the version of the victim (complainant), for the time being, is supported by the P.Ws. Needless to mention that the medical evidence as well as flit factum of the recovery of the gun, at the potation of the petitioner/accused, tentatively, support the version of the complainant.
5. .In the circumstances I am of the opinion that reasonable grounds 'do exist for believing that the petitioner is connected with the commission of the offence with which he has been charged and accordingly does not deserve to be released on bail. This petition being without any merit is thus, rejected.
6. Since the investigation has been completed and. The challan has also been prepared, therefore, the prosecution is directed to submit the challah for trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction within a period of 15 days, positively.