1. ' Following are my reasons in respect of the short order, dated 9-2-1998, whereby the applicant was granted bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one hundred thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Briefly, the facts of the case are that complainant Waseem Ahmed had lodged his complaint at Kunri Police Station stating therein, that he used to take his brother Masood Ahmed to school and bring him back home after school hours. It was further'stated that on 2-4-1997, the complainant had taken his brother to school and in the afternoon had gone to pick him up from the school. It was at this point of time that the brother of the complainant informed him that during the recess in school hours accused Amir and Ehsan had met him and had forcibly taken him to the house of Muhammad Riaz Rajput where Amir is stated to have caught him by the arms and Ehsan had put his hand on his mouth and started to drag him forcibly in the house where the Shalwar of the alleged victim was stated to have been put off in order to commit sodomy upon him. Upon cries being raised, prosecution witnesses, Waseem and Afzal came running and on seeing the said witnesses both the accused ran away. Accordingly, headmaster of the school was informed about the incident and thereafter, the brother of the victim took him to the house and narrated the entire incident to Master Mansoor Ahmed and Master Muhammad Aslam, who had told them not to register the F.I.R.
2. As the matter would he settled in the Jamat as both the parties belonged to a common Jamat. As no settlement was arrived at the F.I.R. Was lodged.
3. ' The learned counsel representing the applicant before me has submitted that thereis an unexplained delay of 11 days in the lodging of the F.I.R. And for that matter as per the prosecution story itself, at best, the case against the applicant would fall under section 342, P.P.C. Entitling him to the concession of grant of hail. It has further been contended before me that the accused is not an absconder as no proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against him. On the contrary, the applicant is stated to have voluntarily surrendered himself before the learned trial Court. The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, conceded to the aspect that at best it would be a case .Of an attempted sodomy and the punishment prescribed would be half of what would he of the offence alleged against the applicant. Reliance has also been placed on reported judgment Ishfaq Ahmed and another v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ p.1317 and Muhammad Nazeer v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ p.1982.
4. I have considered tile contentions of the counsel representing the parties in the present application and on my query, I was informed that no offence was committed in reality and, therefore, the alleged victim was never sent for medical examination and it is under such circumstances that medical report is not available on record. Even otherwise, if the principle of half of the sentence is to be taken into consideration than the maximum sentence which could be awarded to the accused/applicant in respect of the alleged offence would not be more than five years as per the prosecution case itself. Such being the position, the case of the applicant would not fall within the prohibitory clause to section 497, Cr.l'.C. It was for these reasons that the short order was pronounced by me on 9-2-1998.