IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-263 of 2018

Applicant                    :                      Zeeshan son of Muhammad Ramzan Mirani

Through Mr.Rafique Ahmed Abro, Advocate

Complainant              :                       Liaquat Ali Mirani, Through

Mr.Ahmed Wadho, Advocate

State                           :                       Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G  

Date of hearing          :                       16.07.2018

Date of order             :                       16.07.2018

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- It is alleged that the present applicant with rest of the culprits committed rape with Mst.Noor Bano, for that the present case was registered.

2.                     On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that he being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party, there is delay of about one day in lodging of the FIR, which is not explained plausibly, there was no mark of violence on the body of victim Mst.Noor Bano, the sperm fraction found on the clothes of victim did not match with the blood sample of the applicant. By contending so, he sought for release of applicant on bail as according to him his case is calling for further enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Haibat khan vs. the State (2016 SCMR-2176).

4.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the applicant has actively participated in commission of the incident, as such is not entitled to be released on bail. By contending so, he sought for dismissal of the bail application of the applicant. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Qadeer and others vs. the State (2017 YLR-283).

5.                     Learned A.P.G has supported the order of learned trial Court.

6.                     I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                     The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of one day so far the case of applicant is concerned could not be lost sight of. No mark of violence was found on the body of victim. The sperm fraction found on the cloth of victim as per DNA Test were not found match with blood sample of the applicant. In that situation, the involvement of the applicant in commission of the incident obviously is calling for further enquiry.

8.                     Case of Qadeer (supra) which is relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the lady was abducted on gun point she then was kept confined illegally for considerable period and during that captivity was subjected to rape. In that context, the bail to the accused was refused. In the instant case, the abduction of victim on gun point is not involved. If DNA report is taken into consideration, then allegation of rape against the applicant is appearing to be doubtful, tentatively.

9.                    In view of above while relying upon case law which is referred by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

10.                   The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                             J U D G E