Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BASHIR AHMAD VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Ijaz Ahmad ChaudhryMuhammad Ishaq Dogar,Ch. Muhammad Ameer
2007 M L D 592
2007 M L D 592
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
BASHIR AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2204/B of 2006, decided on 5th May, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377---Bail, refusal of---Contents of F.I.R. revealed that victim was about 8/9 years of age, but perusal of medico-legal report had shown that minor (victim) was about 7 years---Prima facie evidence had been collected due to abrasions on the body of the victim and medical evidence supported allegation levelled against accused---Even otherwise, there was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate accused in offence of sodomy committed with his minor brother---Challan in the case had been prepared and sent up to the Court---Accused, in circumstances had not been able to make out a case of further inquiry as sufficient grounds were available to connect him with the commission of offence which was punishable for more than 10 years imprisonment---Case being not fit for grant of bail, bail petition of accused was dismissed.
Muhammad Ishaq Dogar for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Ameer for the State.
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Bashir Ahmad (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 116-2005, dated 15-3-2005, registered under section 377, P.P.C. at Police Station, Satiana, District Faisalabad on the application of Zohra Khan, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as alleged in F.I.R. is that on 23-12-2004 he had committed sodomy with Sohail Afzal aged about 8/9 years, brother of the complainant and the occurrence was witnessed by Nafar Ali and Zubair P.Ws.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is involved in this case due to enmity and challan has not been submitted in the Court; that report shows that incident had taken place 6/7 days prior to the registration of case, hence it is an afterthought story.
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner had committed heinous offence, which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. According to the contents of F.I.R. the victim is about 8/9 years of age, but perusal of Medico-legal report shows that the minor (victim) is about 7 years and prima facie evidence has been collected due to abrasions on the body of the victim and medical evidence supports the allegation levelled against the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case in such heinous offence of sodomy committed with his minor brother. According to the Investigating Officer, challan has been prepared and sent up to the Court. In the above circumstances, I find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of further inquiry, as there are sufficient grounds to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, which is punishable more than 10 years imprisonment. Hence, I do not find a fit case for the grant of bail and resultantly the instant bail petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./B-29/L Bail refused.