' A case wider section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 506, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioner for an occurrence which took place six months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. i,e, on 25-9-1998. The report about the occurrence was lodged by Muhammad Babar Ali, a paternal cousin of the victim namely Mst. Shamim. It was alleged in the F.I.R. That father of the aforesaid Mst. Shamim namely Umar Din being paternal uncle of complainant was ill and unable to move. The wife of aforesaid Umar Din namely Hameedan Bibi was working at the 'Dera' of Ch. Muhammad Saleem for the last about 20 years and her daughter Mst. Shamim i,e, the victim was also working as a maid with the aforesaid Saleem. She worked in the house of the aforesaid Saleem for about one year and during that period, a son of aforesaid Saleem namely Muhammad Shabbir alias Boota i,e, the petitioner who was already married committed illicit intercourse with the victim at pistol point. He also threatened her that if she disclosed about devilish act to any one, he would kill her and her brother. The victim was frightened and the petitioner/accused continued committing illicit intercourse with her for a period of five months. She got pregnant, whereupon, the parents of the petitioner confined her in their house.
However, she managed to inform her mother about the alleged occurrence and ultimately came to her. Thereupon, a month prior to the lodging of the case, the aforesaid Shamim along with her mother went to the complainant and disclosed about the occurrence but all of them could not do anything on account of poverty. However, they made an attempt to convince the father of the petitioner for treatment of the victim namely Shamim but the former threatened the mother of the victim with her life. He also threatened that if any-one of them went to the police, the whole of their family will be finished.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is unprecedented delay of six months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that the victim later on gave birth to a baby and as such, it cannot be said that actually she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr for such a long period and she had kept quiet; that the petitioner is behind the bars since after his arrest in September, 1998; that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as according to the medicolegal report, the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse; that there is no evidence on record to show that in fact the petitioner had committed Zina-bil-jabr with the victim and that he has been implicated falsely in the case at the instance of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that the prosecution has collected evidence against the petitioner from which it is clear that he had been ravishing the victim while she was employed in the house of his father as a maid servant. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has allegedly been explained as the victim was kept in confinement and later on threatened with life; that the petitioner and his family being influential did not allow the victim or her parents to approach the authorities to lodge the report in time; that the mere fact that the victim was shown to be habitual in sexual intercourse would not make any difference in this case as admittedly, she was kept for five months and was being subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner forcibly.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has been explained. In view of the peculiar facts of one case, it would not be relevant to consider the fact of delay at this stage particularly when it has been prima facie explained in the F.I.R. Itself. Even otherwise, deeper appreciation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken while disposing of petition for bail. The prosecution has been able to collect the evidence including the statement of the victim, whereby, she has fully implicated the petitioner for ravishing her while she was serving as maid in the house of his parents.
5. In such a situation, the petitioner has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.