' The applicant/acccused Shakeel is facing trial before the learned Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), under sections 377, 506-B and 34, P.P.C. In a case, which has arisen out of F.I.R.
No,270 of 1998 of Police Station TPX, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R., lodged by complainant Ahmed Jan, are reproduced hereinbelow:- "On 24-10-1998 at 20/20-40 hours, I, (complainant) Ahmed Jan son of Muhammad Saeed, resident of D-640, opposite New Haji Camp Sultanabad, Karachi, lodge F.I.R. That I reside at the above address and my real brother Mehboob Jan with his son Fazal Subhan, aged 13 years also resides with me, my nephew Fazal Subhan is a student of class IX. In Mohalla one Shakeel son of Nisar runs a shop of Video Game, where my nephew Fazal Subhan had gone to play video game but when I knew about it, I prevented him from playing, upon which Fazal Subhan gave up to play video game.
On 17-10-1998, in the evening time, when Fazal Subhan was passing from near by the video game shop Shakeel, Wali and their third companion unknown person who can be recognized by Fazal Subhan on seeing, called him inside the shop, threatened him and on point of pistol took him to the Dern and at about 7-30 p.m. Forcibly committed sodomy/unnatural offence with him, thereafter, let him go with threat not to disclose to anyone. Today, on 24-104998, when complainant's nephew was passing near the shop, Shakeel tried to catch hold of him but he ran away and came to me and disclosed all the facts. I have come for report, my claim is against Shakeel son of Nisar, Wall and another unknown person, who have committed unnatural offence/ sodomy with my nephew Fazal Subhan on 17.10-1998 at about 7-30 p.m. And also threatened him."
3. During the course of investigation applicant/accused was arrested and was sent up to stand trial.
4. The applicant/accused moved the trial Court for grant of bail but his request was turned down by impugned order, dated 23-12-1998.
5. I have heard Mr. Ashique Hussain Mehr, learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as Mr. Muhammad Saleh Punhwar, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. The latter opposed the bail plea of applicant/accuse.
6. The perusal of record shows that the applicant/accused at the point of fire-arm by putting the victim, school-going boy of tender age in fear of death committed sodomy with him alongwith his companion. The act complained is confirmed by medical examination conducted by Medical Officer, J.P.M.C., Karachi. The medical certificate does not show that boy was catamite or of questionable character. The delay in lodging report is properly explained in the F.I.R. Even otherwise delay per se in lodging F.I.R. Is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case as each case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. No material has been placed on record from which it could be deduced that the case is outcome of enmity. Bare word of applicant/accused in this context is not sufficient. The present case is one of involving moral turpitude and it appears that moral values are declining. It is high time when Courts in spite of going into technicalities, restore the confidence of people by implementing law in its true perspective according to the cannons of Islam as ordained by Almighty Allah in Holy Qura'n and its messenger Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.).
7. The following citations quoted by the learned counsel for applicant/accused are of no help to him as those are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(1) Hasil and others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 720,
(ii) Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1195,
(iii) Niamat Ali alias Deena v. The State 1989 M LD 3978.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there are prima facie reasonable grounds to believe that applicant/accused is guilty of the offence and his bail plea stands dismissed.
9. The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and the trial Court will not be influenced thereby in any manner, whatsoever, and it shall be free to arrive at its own and independent conclusion, after evaluating the evidence recorded in the matter.