' Mst. Shamim Akhtar complainant aged 13 years got recorded F.I.R. No,385 on 11-8-1998 at Police Station Tatle Ali, Gujranwala under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 with the allegation that on 2-8-1998 at 2-00 p.m. She was all alone in her house in Qila Nohar Singh when Muhammad Imran petitioner-accused alongwith his co-accused Raees Ahmad and Saeed Ahmad each armed with pistol, residents of Village Qila Nohar Singh trespassed her house and forcibly abducted her. They took her to the house of Muhammad Imran where Muhammad Imran bolted the room in which she was confined. At 10-00 p.m. Muhammad Imran entered that room and committed Zina-bilJabr with her whole of the night. He is said to have threatened her. On the next morning she was taken by Muhammad Imran to avoid the pregnancy who left her in the way. Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ishtiaq arrived there who took her to her house. The efforts for compromise went on and the matter was reported to the police with delay.
2. The law was set in motion. Mst. Shamim Akhtar was medically examined. On the basis of the medico-legal report and positive report of the Chemical Examiner about vaginal swabs of Mst.
Shamim Akhtar, the Woman Medical Officer gave the opinion about the commission of Zina with her. Muhammad Imran was medically examined for potency and the report in the positive was received.
3. Muhammad Imran has been arrested whose bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he has filed this petition before this Court with the same desire.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly stressed about the delay in reporting the matter to the police. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State the said aspect is not enough for the purpose of the admission of Muhammad Imran petitioner to bail.
The plausible explanation about inception of compromise is mentioned in the First Information Report and it is a matter of common knowledge that in our social set-up with respect to heinous offence of the instant nature the elders in the village try to effect the compromise between the families of the victim and the accused party. This assertion has no legal force. The fact of the matter is that the statement of Mst. Shamim Akhtar recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corroborated by the medical evidence pertaining to her and Muhammad Imran petitioner about his potency is enough to hold that the petitioner is prima facie connected with the occurrence. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause. It is a heinous offence. The petitioner went to the house of Mst. Shamim Akhtar and forcibly removed her to the room of his own house where he forcibly committed Zina with her. In the circumstances of the matter and the evidence collected by the prosecution which is to be produced during the trial, the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. For what has been said above, I dismiss this petition.