ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Bail. Application No.S- 122 of 2021

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of bail application

15-04-2021.

Mr. Achar Khan Gabole, advocate for applicant.

Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Malik advocate files power on behalf of complainant Ghulam Hussain.

Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi, DPG for the State.

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;- It is alleged that the applicant by taking off the clothes of PW Mst. Kaneez Fatima obtained her obscene photos and then attempted to commit rape her, during course whereof, she sustained minor injuries on her arms, for that the present case was registered.

2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro/Gender Base Violence Court Naushahro Feroze, has sought for the same from this Court by making instant Crl. Bail Application under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party; the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with delay of about three days; no rape has been committed with the victim Mst. Kaneez Fatima and the applicant has been charged by the police u/s 376(A) PPC, which is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 (II) Cr.P.C, therefore the applicant is entitled to grant of bail on point of further inquiry. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case of Muhammad Tanveer Vs. The State and another (2017 SCMR 366).

4. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he is fully involved in commission of incident. In support of their contention, they have relied upon case of Nehal Vs. The State and another (2020 SCMR 2053).

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

6. The FIR of the incident has lodged with the delay of about three days; such delay having not been explained plausibly, could not be over looked. Victim Mst. Kaneez Fatima has been subjected to medical examination for treatment of her injuries on 4^th day of FIR, which appears to be significant. Injuries sustained by her are minor in nature. The Obscene photographs of victim Mst. Kaneez Fatima have been secured by the police on its production by the complainant, which is surprising. There is no recovery of any sort from the applicant. No rape with victim Mst. Kaneez Fatima has taken place. The applicant has mainly been charged for an offence u/s 376(A) PPC. It carries punishment up to three years with fine, which is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (II) Cr.P.C. The case has finally been challaned. The applicant is in custody since four months. In these circumstances, a case for grant of bail to the applicant on point of further inquiry obviously is made out.

7. The case law which is relied upon by learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the complainant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. It was the case, which was involving the history of carnal assault with lady victim. It was promptly reported case. In the instant matter, the incident is reported to police with considerable delay.

8. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety in sum of rupees fifty thousand and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

9. The instant Cr. Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/Steno.