' Muhammad Naveed Iqbal petitioner was arrested on 27-3-2001 in case F.I.R. No.138, Police Station Cantt., District Mansehra, registered on 23-3-2001 at 5-30 p.m. On the statement of Mst. Fatima Bibi daughter of Muhammad Ayub resident of Village Dana Mansehra, under section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 452, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 23-3-2001 at about 12 noon, Mst. Fatima Bibi complainant was present alone in her house, when the petitioner trespassed into the house, caught hold of the complainant of her arm and dragged her into the room and after having felled her on the ground attempted to untie the string of her Shalwar with sinister purpose. On raising hue and cry Muhammad Afzal son of Rehmatullah, a neighbour of the complainant came to her rescue.
On seeing Muhammad Afzal, the petitioner left the complainant and made good his escape. On coming to the house, the complainant told her woeful tale to her parents who made the report same day at the police station at 17-30 hours.
3. The petitioner moved an application in the Court of Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Mansehra for grant of bail which was refused by order, dated 6-4-2001. The petitioner's application for grant of bail was also declined by order, dated 26-4-2001 by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar desire.
4. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued for bail by emphasising that the petitioner has falsely and maliciously been involved in the case on the basis of wholly false and fabricated version which is apparent from the bare reading of the report. He also argued that the report has been lodged with delay after due consultations and deliberations that the provision of section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 452, P.P.C. Are not applicable in the case and at the most the case made out falls under sections 451/354, P.P.C. Which are bailable. He relied on Dost Muhammad v. The State PLD 1996 Lah. 217, Niaz Ahmad v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1511 (Lahore), Qazi Ashiq Hussain v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 205, Riaz v.
The State 1995 PCr.LJ 959 (Lahore) and Nasir etc. v. The State NLR 1991 Criminal 527.
5. Conversely, Qazi Salik, Advocate for the State assisted by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Khan Swati, Advocate for the complainant contended that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to bail. It was contended that the first informant, a young girl of 16/17 years of age was alone in the house when the petitioner trespassed into the house, caught hold of her and made an attempt to commit Zina- bil-Jabr. Fortunately, the timely help of Muhammad Afzal, a neighbour of the complainant, saved the girl from the nefarious designs of the petitioner. It was not only a case of attempted Zina- bil- Jabr but also a violation of sanctity of home {{URDU TEXT}}, where womenfolk are presumed to enjoy the protection as against all transgressors and that the offence is an offence against the society and the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail. The learned counsel also submitted that the crime in question occurred at daylight that on arrival of the parents of the victim to the house the pathetic story was told to them and the matter was reported to the police without loss of time; that the medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version and that the victim had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner and bring disgrace to her family. In support of his submissions he relied on Muhammad Sajjad v. The State 1996 M LD 103 (Lahore), Munsif Khan v. The State NLR 1993 SD 126, Haji and another v. The State 1995 M LD 588 (Karachi) and Bashir v. The State 1996 M LD 1053 (Lahore).
6. After hearing the arguments and submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the rulings cited at the bar I find that keeping in view, all the facts and the circumstances of the case, besides the factor of delay in lodging of the F.I.R., my tentative assessment is that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under section 18 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 452, P.P.C.
And there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Only an allegation of attempt to commit Zina was levelled against the petitioner who is in jail ever since his arrest on 27-3-2001 and there appears to be no likelihood of his trial in near future. Resultantly, the application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Mansehra.
7. Needless to add here that the observations made above are tentative in nature and relate to the order in hand.