Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHSAN SHABBIR BUKHARI VS Respondent: STATE
1994 P Cr
1994 P Cr. L J 1018
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J
AHSAN SHABBIR BUKHARI---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4275/B of 1993, decided on 28th November, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377---Bail---Victim according to the doctor had been subjected to sodomy---Delay of three days had been explained in the F.I.R.---Semen could not be detected after three days due to the passing of stools---Sufficient material was available on record to prima facie connect the accused with the crime and reasonable grounds existed to believe his involvement in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C---Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
P L D 1967 SC 363; P L D 1965 FSC 404; 1985 S C M R 1822 and 1986 S C M R 533 ref.,
Ch. Ali Muhammad for Petitioner.
Malik Suleman Awan for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is involved in a case under section 377, P.P.C. and section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, arising out of F.I.R. No .215, dated 7-8-1993, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that he alongwith his co-accused committed unnatural offence with the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter was reported after three days delay which remained unexplained. The medical report does not support the prosecution case as the Chemical Examiner did not find any semen in the anal swabs of the victim. No blood-stained clothes were taken into possession which could have proved the prosecution case. In the end, he submitted that section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, is not attracted to the facts of this case, at the most section 377, P.P.C. could be attracted but that too could not be proved in view of the lack of the evidence, hence the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry and the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. He has placed reliance on P L D 1967 SC 363, P L D 1965 FSC 404, 1985 S C M R 1822 and 1986 S C M R 533.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer has opposed this bail application on the ground that the doctor observed redness on the anus of the victim and had opined that he has been subjected to sodomy. He further contended that the matter was reported A after a delay of three days which was explained in the F.I.R. itself and the semen could not be detected after three days due to the passing of the stools, hence the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, there is sufficient material on the record to connect the petitioner prima facie with the crime in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the State mentioned above, hence there exist reasonable grounds to B believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause, so this bail application is dismissed.
N.H.Q./A-542/L Bail refused.