' The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No,104 of 2000, dated 24-3-2000 under section 10 of 1979, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, on the complaint of one Zulfiqar Ali, in which he alleged that on 12-3-2000 at about 3-00 p.m. His daughter Fareeda Bibi, went in fields to answer the call of nature where she was subjected to Zina-bil-Jabr by the petitioner who was armed with dagger. The victim Fareeda raised hue and cry which attracted the witnesses, seeing whom the accused ran away. With these allegations the abovementioned case was registered.
2. Earlier bail petition was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, which was dismissed vide order, dated 9-6-2000, with the observation that the present case was investigated by S.P. Who vide his Police Diary No,17, dated 28-5-2000 declared the petitioner innocent that as regard delay is concerned a word lay mention in the statement of first informant recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. That the respectables have refrained him from the registration of the present case. The present case was investigated by local S.H.O. On 31-3-2000 who was of the opinion that sex to the victim was committed with her consent. The case was later on investigated by D.S.P., Burewala, who also found the petitioner guilty. The present case was later on investigated by Mehboob Ahmad, P.S.O. To the S.P., who conducted the investigation on oath and recommended the cancellation of case against the petitioner. I am afraid that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. Or in Police Rules whereby criminal cases could be decided on oath. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that victim is habitual, I am afraid that this amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence, which has been deprecated by the Superior Courts. Offence against the petitioner is one of moral turpitude and falls within the prohibitory clause as contemplated under section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, which is accordingly dismissed.
3. Now bail is pressed on the grounds that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed the offence alleged against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in the abovementioned case due to party faction and enmity, that the alleged occurrence stated to be taken place on 12-3- 2000 but the case was registered after a delay of 12 days on 24-3-2000, which was not explained by the complainant. This delay proves that the case was registered after consultation and due deliberation and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive.
Hence the case of the petitioner for further inquiry is made out, that it is also noticed that the victim namely Fareeda Bibi was medically examined on 26-3-2000, after 14 days delay since occurrence and also 2 days delay after the lodging of the F.I.R., that according to the opinion given in the medico-legal report, the doctor opined that aforesaid Fareeda Bibi, the victim, is habitual, though the report of the Chemical Examiner is that swabs were stained with semen, but it is unnatural that after the lapse of 14 days the swa bs cannot intact. Hence the report of the Chemical Examiner itself creates doubts in the case which was managed by the complainant with ulterior motive and mala fide intention, that in case was investigated by 3 times, in which the local police found the petitioner guilty but in the last investigation the petitioner was declared innocent and recommended for discharge. Hence the case of the petitioner for further inquiry is made out, that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required to the police for any purpose, petitioner cannot be detained in the judicial lock-up for indefinite period. According to the opinion and the finding given by the Investigating Officer the aforesaid offence has not attracted and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant due to mala fide and ulterior motive shown the age of her daughter the victim as 13 years. It is absolutely wrong because she is major and more than 18 years of age. In the medico-legal report her age was also entered as 18 years and that the petitioner is not a previous convict.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has submitted That the first investigation conducted by the S.H.O. The petitioner was found guilty and the second investigation by the D.S.P.
The petitioner found guilty and third investigation by S.P. He took oath and found the petitioner innocent and the report of the Chemical Examiner is positive.
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both arguments on both sides.
6. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Being without explanation and conducting of medico-legal report after 14 days and the last investigation being of innocent of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail for the last 5 months, as such, the case of the petitioner that of further probe, so, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.