Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim KhanSikandar Javed
2011 Y L R 1569
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan, J
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE and another----Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No.721-B of 2010, decided on 19th April, 2010.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.376---Rape---Bail, refusal of---Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific allegation was levelled against him that he and co-accused committed zina-bil-jabr with the complainant---Such allegation was prima facie supported by Medico-legal Report of the complainant, which had shown that two marks of violence were present on the body of the complainant---Delay of 7/8 days in lodging of F.I.R., was no ground to enlarge accused on bail, as bail application could be decided only on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence of the prosecution---Perusal of the judicial record, revealed that charge against accused was framed by the Trial Court, but trial was being delayed on account of the act of accused as witnesses were not being cross-examined by his counsel---Offence against accused was heinous which fell within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Counsel for accused, had not pointed out any reason for false involvement of accused in the case---Bail was declined. Sikandar Javed for Petitioner. Raja Sultan Khurram-uz-Zaman for the Complainant. Muhammad Suleman, learned DDPP for the State.
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 44 of 2009 dated 16-3-2009 offence under section 376(ii) of P.P.C., Police Station Chap Kalan, District Khanewal. 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 7-3-2009 at about 4-00 p.m., he along with his co-accused Azeem committed Zina-bil-Jabar with Mst. Fareeda Begum complainant, turn by turn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 7-3-2009 whereas report of the occurrence was lodged before the police on 15-3-2009 and there is no explanation for such delay; that there are no marks of violence on the person of the victim and that the swabs which were sent to Chemical Examiner were found not stained with semen so the allegation of commission of rape requires further inquiry. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 20-5-2009 and he is behind the bars for last about 11-months without trial. 4. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he had committed rape with the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are marks of violence on the person of the victim according to the medico legal report that charge against the petitioner was framed on 15-8-2009 by the learned trial Court and examination in chief of five witnesses have been recorded but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not cross-examined the aforementioned witnesses so the delay in the trial is being caused due to the act of the petitioner. Lastly, it has been argued that it is a heinous offence which falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. and mere delay of few days in lodging of the F.I.R. is no ground for the grant of bail to the petitioner and he prays for dismissal of the bail petition. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegation against him that he committed Zina-bil-Jabr with the complainant along with co-accused Azeem turn by turn. This allegation is prima facie supported by the medico legal report of the complainant which shows that there were two marks of violence on the body of the complainant. The delay of 7/8 days in lodging of the F.I.R. is no ground to enlarge the-petitioner on bail as bail application can be decided only on the basis of tentative assessment of evidence of the prosecution. Perusal of the judicial record reveals that the charge against the accused was framed on 15-8-2009 by the learned trial Court but the trial is being delayed on account of act of the petitioner as witnesses are not being cross-examined by his counsel. This is a heinous offence which falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any reason for false involvement of the petitioner in his case. 7. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. Petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-40/L Bail refused.