' Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners (Mr. Arshad Mahmood Lodhi, Advocate) and the learned Assistant Advocate-General (Kh. Azhar Rashid) heard. Record of the case perused.
2. The petitioners are directly charged in the F.I.R. By the complainant, a minor boy of 10/11 years, for having committed sodomy with him.
3. The petitioners after having failed to procure bail have come to this Court for the redress of their grievance stating therein that they are innocent and falsely charged and as such entitled to be released on bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners (Mr. Arshad Mahmood Lodhi, Advocate, Nowshera) has made two-fold submissions, Firstly, that the F.1.R. Has not been promptly lodged and secondly, the medico-legal report furnished by Dr. Arshad Mahmood Kayani, Squadron Leader/Medical Officer, P.A.F., Academy, Risalpur contradicts the version contained in the F.I.R. And, therefore, the case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry.
5. It may be stated at the very outset that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any substance. Admittedly the occurrence took place on 19-2-1998 in the evening and the victim of the sodomy, a minor boy of about 10/11 years, was not expected to go to the police station straightaway and lodge the report. It is but natural that he had to narrate the story to his father and thereafter, the report was to be lodged. The delay in lodging the report has been plausibly explained. Accordingly, the petitioners cannot be released on bail on this ground.
Secondly, the medico-legal report by Dr. Arshad Mahmood Kayani in no way contradicts the version as contained in the F.I.R. Similarly, the medico-legal report scribed by Dr. Aminul Haq Civil Medical Officer, D.E.Q., Nowshera fully supports the contentions of the complainant boy. Besides this, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the minor boy had any ill-will/motive/animosity, to falsely implicate the petitioners in this case.
6. Accordingly, I am of the view that reasonable grounds do exist that the petitioners are connected with the commission of the offence charged with and are not entitled to be released on bail. To the same effect are the findings of both the lower Courts.
7. This petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed.