IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Bail Application No.S-15 of 2022

Applicant: Aziz Solangi, through

Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, Advocate

Complainant: Mumtaz Ali in person

State: Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah Rizvi

Additional Prosecutor General

Date of hearing: 07.03-2022

Date of Decision: 07.03-2022

O R D E R

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.- Through this bail application, applicant/ accused Aziz son of Abdul Rasheed Solangi, seeks his pre-arrest bail in FIR No.09/2022, registered at Police Station Moro, u/s 377, 506/2, 504, 147 and 149 PPC. Earlier his same plea was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moro/Gender Base Violence Court Naushahro Feroze, vide order dated 15.01.2022.

2. The allegation against the present applicant is that he along with his companions namely Shehzad and Adil had took away the complainants son Faraz Ali aged about 17 to their house where they committed sodomy with him and making such video uploaded on social media.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is delay of about on and half year in registration of FIR which has not been explained; that the applicants is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive and malafide intention; that there is no medical certificate which proves the act of sodomy and the incident is unseen; that co-accused Shazado has already been granted post arrest bail by the learned II-Judicial Magistrate Moro while the case of present applicant is on better footings to that of co-accused. Lastly he prayed that the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant may be confirmed. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon 2021 YLR 1736, 2008 SCMR 173 and 2009 SCMR 299

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G and complainant have opposed the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant and have contended that the applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role, so also victim has also implicated him in his 161 Cr.P.C statement; that the offence is against the society which also comes within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C as such the applicant deserves no leniency and his bail application may be dismissed. He in support of his contention relied upon 2021 YLR 1735 and 2022 P.Cr.L.J 151

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material available on the record with their able assistance.

6. Though the applicant is not saddled with the offence of sodomy in the FIR but the victim in his 161 Cr.P.C statement has fully implicated him with the role of committing sodomy. Even otherwise as per FIR at the time of taking away the victim from his house for committing sodomy, the applicant was with the co-accused and facilitated in the offence. It is observed that the offences of like nature are heinous relating to high moral turpitude and are increasing day by day in our country, therefore, there is need to discourage these offences. It is further observed that the applicant had indeed committed a most heinous offence and there could be no redemption of compensation for the victim because he would have to live with the worst scars that one could imagine. So far the he contentions of learned counsel for the applicant in respect of co-accused Shahzado that he has been granted bail by the learned II-Judicial Magistrate More, is concerned, it is pointed out by the learned APG that application for cancellation of his bail has been filed which is pending before Additional Sessions Judge Moro, hence this court would not touch the said order which my prejudice either party. Learned APG has brought on record the USB of the said naked video of the victim and submitted that the same is available in the police file and it is in sealed condition. Therefore the same is returned to learned APG, the veracity of the same would be decided by the trial court after recording evidence. It is settled principle of law that the bail plea is to be decided on the basis of material available on record tentative and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible under the law.

7. The contention in respect of delay in registration of FIR has also no force as the victim at the first instance, in order to save reputation of his family remained silent and when he was continuously blackmailed by the accused persons as well as when his naked videos were shown in the social media / electronic media, then FIR was registered. In such circumstances and particularly per facts of the present case such delay is not fatal as each case is to be decided on its own facts.

8. Since direct role has been assigned to the applicant and offence carries capital punishment which is against the society, he is not entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail which is an extra ordinary relief and can only be granted to the innocent person or to the person to whom some malafide has been assigned against the prosecution which are missing in the present case. Resultantly, this criminal bail application stands dismissed and the order dated 17.01.2022 whereby the applicant was granted interim pre-arrest bail, is hereby recalled.

9. I.O/SIP Hakim Din is present and submits that as per his secret information the accused is also involved in other similar nature offences but the people due to damage of their honour are not coming forward as such he requested that custody of the applicant may be given to him for conducting investigation. At his request the custody of applicant is given to him who will conduct and complete the investigation within two days and thereafter remand him to the concerned jail.

10. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and will not, in any manner, influence the learned Trial Court at the time of final decision of the subject case.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA