Muhammad Irfan Vs The State

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

Cr.MB. No.128-D/2020.

Muhammad Irfan Vs.

The State & another,

JUDGMENT

For Petitioner: Mr. Salimullah Khan Ranazai. Advocate.

For Respondent: dnan Ali : A.G. & Muhammad Waheed ,An ium.

Advocate,

Date of hearing: 15.4.2020.

:t**

SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.- Being booked in case FIR No.98 dated 06.5.2019, registered under Section 376134 PPC read with Section 53 of Child Protection Act at police station Paroa, District D.I.Khan, accused/petitioner Muhammad Irfan son of Allah Ditta has approached this Court for his release on bail. Earlier, he was declined bail by the Court of leamed Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I.Khan, vide order dated 2 Brief account of the prosecution story, as disclosed in the FIR, is that on 06.5.2019 at 1730 hours, Asma Bibi complainant, in the company of her father Karim Bakhsh, made report in the police station Paroa, to the effect that on the eventful day at about 10:00 a.m.,

she was going from her home to the house of her patemal aunt and when reached near the house of accused/petitioner in the thoroughfare, there petitioner and co-accused Muzamil catch hold of her, accused Muzamil put hands on her mouth and both the accused dragged her to the house of the petitioner. The inmates of the house had gone out for cutting the wheat crop.

She was put on a cot in the residential room of the petitioner where she was beaten and subjected to zina- bil-jabr, whereafter, accused/petitioner tied her hands, while the co-accused Muzamil left the spot' She was let free after two hours by the accused/petitioner and on reaching her home, she narrated the occurrence to the the inmates of her house' On report of the complainant' instant case vide the captioned FIR was registered against the accused.

3.Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued the case at length and submitted that the report was

lodged with a considerable delay and that the medical

evidence does not support case of the prosecution' He

the medical report draw the attention of this Court to

available on file and also to the DNA report' the learned

that though vaginal counsel for the petitioner stressed analysis it was found swabs were taken, but after that the co-accused' whose negative. He lastly contended when approached the bail was dismissed by this Court'

-J

trial Court on fresh ground on the basis of compromise effected between the parties, he was released on bail.

The main thirst of his argument was that as the offence was non-compoundable, so the role of both the accused could not be bifurcated and to him, the benefit extended to one of the accused should have been given to the present petitioner and that the rule of consistency does app1y.

4.On the contrary, it was contended that the offence is non-compoundable and heinous in nature, therefore, compromise cannot be pressed into service to enlarge the petitioner on bail. It was further contended that the evidence collected by the investigating agency fully supports the prosecution version, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the concession ofbail'

5.Arguments heard and record perused'

6.The record was read thoroughly where it surfaced that the accused/petitioner has been directly

charged for commission of the offence' It is a daylight

occulTence, so no question arises with regard to

misidentiflrcation of the culprits' that too when the

The stress of the parties belong to the same village' that the matter has leamed counsel for the petitioner delay' does not hold been reported after a considerable is nothing but ground, as delay in such like matters is the victim and the family natural as the honour of both

involved and the family takes high care to avoid a stigma and it is only when no option is left, the matter is reported. In case in hand, as the petitioner has been charged for ravishing the modesty of a young girl and the parents were passing through mental agonies, so in such state of affairs, it tums hard to decide and report, so the delay caused will not benefit the accused at this stage, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The victim was medically examined where it was found that the hymen was

ruptured, which lends support to the case of the

prosecution.

1.The learned counsel for the petitioner granted bail by submitted that the co-accused has been the learned trial Court on the basis of compromise'

therefore, the petitioner deserves alike treatment' The

convince this Court' as submissions so made could not

no compromise was effected with the petitioner'

8.The leamed counsel for the petitioner and wanted us to venture into argued the case at length but this Court is the realm of deeper appreciation' while seized of the bail matter' conscious of the fact that prejudice deeper appreciation is not warranted as it may to rather the Court should adhere the case of either side'

tentative assessment of the material brought before'

seems connected with Prima facie, the petitioner

commission of the offence and could not succeed tn making out a case for bail. Reliance placed on case reported as Aamir Bashir and another Vs. The State and other 7 SCMR 60

g. Resultantly, this petition is devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove, shall not affect merits of the case.

Y/

Announced. ji'tu Dt: 15.4.2 0.

Kifayat/* ]UDGE (s.B) Hon'ble Mr. lustice Sohibzoda Asadulloh

I Y