Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARFRAZ VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Syed Sakhi Hussain BokhariCh. Muhammad Arif Bhinder,Ch. Liaqat Ali
2006 Y L R 1871
2006 Y L R 1871
[Lahore]
Before Syed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J
SARFRAZ ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Cr. Miscellaneous No.3876-B of 2005, decided on 5th July, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12---Bail, grant of---Allegation against accused was that he took complainant from his house and his co-accused committed sodomy with him---No allegation of sodomy was found against accused---Accused was in judicial lock-up since long, but no witness had been examined so far---Case being fit for grant of bail to accused, he was allowed bail.
Ch. Muhammad Arif Bhinder for Petitioner.
Ch. Liaqat Ali for the State.
Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for the Complainant.
Bashir Ahmad, A.S.-I. along with Record.
ORDER
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J---The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.279 of 2004 dated 30-12-2004 under section 377, P.P.C. and section 12 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance,1979 registered at Police Station Midh Ranjha, District Sargodha.
2. As per F.I.R. on 29-12-2004 at about 8-00 p.m. petitioner took Zulfiqar Ahmad, complainant to the garden of Ghulam Abbas son of Ghulam Ali, where Sarfraz son of Meera and Nawaz son of Noor Muhammad committed sodomy upon him. The petitioner remained there at the place of occurrence when his co-accused committed sodomy upon complainant. The case was registered on 30-12-2004 and petitioner was accordingly arrested on 17-2-2005. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is no allegation of sodomy against the petitioner. He contended that as per F.I.R. petitioner brought complainant from his house but he (complainant) has not levelled allegation of sodomy against him, therefore, the case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. He further contended that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 17-2-2005 but no P.W. has been examined so far, therefore, he deserves concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed this application.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he took the complainant from his house and his co-accused committed sodomy upon him. He is in judicial lock-up since 17-2-2005 but according to learned counsel for the petitioner no witness has been examined so far. There is no allegation of sodomy against him. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, if petitioner failed to appear before learned trial Court the trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of any party during trial.
H.B.T./S-449/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.