' Respondent No,1 stands charged by petitioner. Mst. Shehnaz Bibi, aged about 17/18 years, for having committed an offence punishable under section 10(2) of Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 506, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,64, dated 29-4-1998, registered at Police Station, Gomal University, D. F. Khan.
2. Mr. Abdul Latif Bloch, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Karim Anjam, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Syed Saeed Hassan Sherazi, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State present and heard. Record of the case perused.
3. The petitioner was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, ID.. Khan (Syed Rafique Hussain Shah) without taking into consideration the statements of the victim, her parents and the elders of the Illaqa. He has also failed to take note of the fact that no previous enmity existed between the parties and that there was no reason, whatsoever, for the victim to have charged him falsely for having committed Zina with her. The Sessions Judge, it appears, was influenced by the delay in lodging the F.I.R. And also because 'of the negative report of the Chemical Examiner.
4. The grant of bail by the Sessions Judge forced the victim to move this Court for the redress of her grievance stating that the respondent was not entitled to be released on bail inasmuch as reasonable grounds do exist for believing that he is connected with the commission of offence charged with.
5. I would have taken all these facts into consideration if complete Chillan against the accused had not been completed because the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in so many cases, has held that it would not be proper to cancel/recall the bail if the case is ripe for trial. Following are some of the cases which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent:--
(1) Mst. Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another 1985 SCM R 1691 "----Art. 185(3)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Petitioner seeking cancellation of bail allowed by High Court to accused---Trial commencing shortiv---Supreme Court declined to interfere."
(2) The State v. Rashid Ahmad and another 1988 SCM R 1129 "----S. 497(5)---Bail, cancellation of---Bail granted to accused by High Court in 1985 on wrong around---Possibility existing that accused either had stood his trial or that his trial was to commence soon---Order granting bail to accused maintained on ground other than one given by High, Court. "
43) Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 "----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Cancellation of bail---Trial was to commence within a fortnight-Cancellation of bail at such state. Held. Would not be proper."
(4) Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Naqi Butt and 2 others 1976 SCM R 360 "----S. 497/498---Bail---Supreme Court on being informed by counsel for State that inquiry proceedings were likely to conclude soon refusing to interfere with High Court's ing bail to respondent---High Court, nevertheless, subsequently granting bail to respondents---Supreme Court, though not happy about order, thus, passed, nevertheless, in view of there being nothing to show misuse of their revile e b accused not feeling advised to interfere with High Court's order at such stage---Petitioner advised to approach High Court for cancellation of bail should any one of respondents misuse privilege of bail at any time."
5. This bail cancellation petition stands rejected in view of what has been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and referred to above.
Petition rejected.