' Imtiaz petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him under section 376/511, P. P. C. On 27th July 1977. The allegations are that on 16th July 1977 at 2 p m. Mst. Raheen Kausar, aged 14 years, was on way to her sister's house and when she reached near the door of the haveli of the petitioner he dragged her inside the haveli, closed its door and removed her shalwar with a view to commit rape with her. On the alarm of the prosecutrix, Asghar Ali, Muhammad Tufail, Barkat Ali and many other persons gathered outside the haveli. On seeing them, the petitioner fled away by scaling over the wall of the haveli:
2. The petitioner was admitted to bail by Mr. Sami Ullah Abid, Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh, on 2nd August 1977, mainly on the ground that the F. I. R. Was delayed by eleven days and the petitioner was not required any more by the police. The prosecutrix made an application for the cancellation of the bail which came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who observed that the delay was not fatal and the mere fact that the petitioner was not required by the police was not a sufficient ground for the grant of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the facts contained in the F. I. R. No offence under section 376/511, P. P. C. Is made out and at best the case falls under section 354, P. P.
C. Which is a bailable offence. Relying on Ali Muhammad v. The State (1) and Nuna v. Emperor (2), he contends that the removal of the shalwar of the prosecutrix by the petitioner without taking any further step towards the commission of rape cannot bring the offence within a purview of section 376/511, P. P. C. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State and the complainant contend that the petitioner dragged the posecutrix into his haveli, closed its door and removed her shalwar and if the eye-witnesses and other persons had not been attracted, the attempt would have resulted in the commission of rape, therefore, the allegations prima facie show the commission of an offence under section 376/511, P. P. C. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1970 Lab. 230 {{FOOT NOTE}}
4. In Ali Muhammad v. The State, it was held that the attempt is complete if the prisoner does an act which is a step towards the commission of the specific crime which is immediately and not merely remotely connected with the commission of it, and the doing of which cannot reasonably be regarded as having any other purpose than the commission of the specific crime". This observation does not in any way support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Nuna v. Emperor, the facts were that the accused took off the clothes of a girl, threw her on the ground and then sat down by her side without doing anything more and it was held that he was guilty of an offence under section 354, P. P. C. And not for an attempt to commit rape. In the instant case the facts clearly show that it was only due to the arrival of the eye-witnesses and the other persons that the petitioner could not succeed in 'A the commission of the nefarious act intended by him, therefore, the authority referred to above has no application to the facts of this case. In Kishen Singh v. Emperor (1), the facts were that the accused stepped across from his own roof to that of his neighbour at night, caught hold of his daughter, got down on the cot with her, undid the string of her pijama and was seen struggling with her when the mother of the girl came up in answer to her cries and he ran away. It was held that he had been rightly convicted under section 376/511, P. P.
C. In that case the accused could not complete the act because of the arrival of the mother of the girl and in the instant case he was interrupted by the arrival of the eye-witnesses and the other persons who had gathered outside the haveli, therefore, the above authority is attracted to the facts of this case. The delay in reporting the occurrence is not fatal to the prosecution. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge shows that the father of the prosecutrix had been pursuing the matter before the Martial Law Authorities which caused delay in lodging the F. I. R. Moreover, the delay is fatal only in those cases where the identity of the culprit is in doubt. In the instant case, the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and there was no doubt about] the identity of the culprit.
5. After giving my careful consideration to the relevant material and the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner had been guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) AIR 1927 Lab. 580 {{FOOT NOTE}}