' The petitioner is involved in a case under section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 registered vide F.I.R. No,384 of 1998, dated 8-10-1998 at Police Station, A-Division, Okara at the report of Mst. Nargas Bibi victim. She contended that the accused took her to a nearby building on the pretext of getting her employment as she was jobless and mother of 4 children, having been married about 8 years back with Muhammad Ashraf who had deserted her being an addict. After taking the victim to a quarter of Abdul Sattar, the petitioner committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her. When she tried to raise alarm she was threatened to life upon which she kept quiet. After commission of zina, the petitioner locked her in a room and left the quarter alongwith Abdul Sattar, who remained sitting in office while the occurrence had taken place. The petitioner returned at 6-00 p.m. And again committed zina with her and, thereafter, left her. She went over to Mubarik Ali with whom she was living as she called him as chacha (uncle).
She sat quietly before the aforesaid Mubarik Ali whereupon the said Mubarik Ali asked her as to what was the matter. She narrated the occurrence while weeping that she was subjected to Zina- bil-Jabr by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., that there is no independent eye-witness except the victim herself; that there was no mark of violence on the person of the prosecutrix; that the medico-legal examination was performed after about 7 days and as such it has no evidentiary value.
3. Apart from the above facts, the bail was prayed on the ground that Mubarik Ali aforesaid had resiled from his statement and did not support the version of the prosecutrix about the narration of story about Zina-bil-Jabr; that one of the witnesses namely Muhammad Latif was allegedly inimical to the petitioner as there was some dispute between them regarding payment of money, besides that he was alleged to be a stock witness and hence not reliable. Even otherwise he had not seen the actual occurrence except that he had seen the prosecutrix accompanying the petitioner in pathatic condition. It was prayed that it was a case of further inquiry and the petitioner was entitled to bail.
4. This bail petition was opposed by the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that prosecutrix had miserable marital life that she being jobless was tempted by the petitioner to her employment as she has to bring up 4 children and that on false pretext she was taken to the quarter of Abdul Sattar where she was subjected to rape not only once but twice. The repor of the Chemical Examiner was positive, which under the circumstances was sufficient corroborative evidence for the limited purposes of bail to link the petitioner with the occurrence. The complainant had allegedly no animus against the petitioner in order to falsely implicate him in this case. The mere fact that there was delay of 3 days in lodging the F.I.R. Was explained by stating that complainant being a destitute must have been reluctant to go to the police station and as such delay per se would not throttle the prosecution version. The absence of mark of violence was also of no importance because the complainant tried to raise alarm, but was made to be quiet by giving her life threats by the petitioner.
5. Lastly it was contended that the petitioner is admittedly a married person having 7 children and such-like persons should not be easily spared for the offence of this nature.
6. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that prosecution has collected sufficient evidence upon the basis of which a report under section 173, Cr.P.C., has already been sent to the Court concerned for trial. At this stage, there is no ground to disbelieve the complainant i,e,, the victim whose statement stands corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner. The other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deeply concerned the merits of the case, which could only be settled during trial. The petitioner has no case for bail and his bail petition is dismissed accordingly.
7. Before parting with the matter, it may be pointed out that in this case the S.H.O., Police Station, A- Division, Okara had failed to comply with the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C., for which a detailed order was made on 9-3-1999 calling upon the aforesaid S.H.O., to explain as to why provisions contained in the aforesaid section were violated by him. Likewise P.D.S.P. District Okara was directed to appear in person to explain as to why the challan was retained in his office after its submission by the police station concerned. It was also observed that the S.P., Okara shall send a report for the non-compliance of the provisions contained in section 173, Cr.P.C., by S.H.Os. In the district concerned. The report or the explanation asked for from the above police officers have not been placed on record. The S.H.O.; Police Station, A-Division, Okara, P.D.S.P. Okara and S.P. Okara, are directed to appear in this Court on 19-5-1999 alongwith their reports and explanation as directed in the order, dated9-3-1999. The A.A.-G. Shall ensure the presence of aforesaid officers on the adjourned date.