PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 289
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]

Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.

AMEEN alias KALI--Petitioner

versus

STATE and another--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 51098-B of 2024, decided on 24.9.2024.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 377 & 376-B--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Unexplained delay in lodging FIR--Medical evidence--Allegation of--Offence of sodomy--Digital rectal examination shows no abnormalities in size or capacity of anal canal--The alleged victim disclosed before doctor at time of his medical examination that ejaculation occurred inside his anus once at time of alleged occurrence, however, in this case, DNA report of PFSA has been received, according to which, no seminal material was found on anal swabs of alleged victim--The record further reflects that in light of opinion rendered by medical officer, stance of complainant as narrated in crime report was found not correct by investigating officer--Nothing was recovered on pointing out of petitioner during course of investigation--All above narrated facts make case of petitioner one of further inquiry falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C--The guilt of petitioner would be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--The petitioner is behind bars ever since after his, arrest and no more required to investigating agency for purpose of further investigation--No useful purpose would be served while keeping accused petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period--Bail allowed.                           [Para 4 & 5] A & B

Rai Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal, Advocate for Petitioner.

Syed Muntazir Mehdi Bukhari, ADPP for State.

Date of hearing: 24.9.2024.

Order

Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 917/2024, dated 06.05.2024, offences under Sections 377 and 376-B, PPC registered with Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura.

2.       Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the crime report is that on 03.05.2024, at 2:00 p.m.. he committed sodomy with Ameer Hamza minor son of the complainant.

3.       Arguments heard and record perused.

4.       There is an unexplained delay of about three days in lodging the crime report, which shows deliberations and consultation on the part of the complainant.[1] Although the petitioner has been saddled with the allegation that he committed sodomy with the alleged victim, however, the medical officer did not observe any marks of bruise, laceration, abrasion, stain or inflammation present in or around the anus. He also did not observe any abrasions or scratch marks over the body of the alleged victim. Digital rectal examination shows no abnormalities in the size or capacity of the anal canal. The alleged victim disclosed before the doctor at the time of his medical examination that ejaculation occurred inside his anus once at the time of the alleged occurrence, however, in this case, DNA report of PFSA has been received, according to which, no seminal material was found on anal swabs of the alleged victim. The record further reflects that in the light of opinion rendered by the medical officer, the stance of the complainant as narrated in the crime report was found not correct by the investigating officer. Nothing was recovered on the pointing out of the petitioner during the course of investigation. All the above narrated facts make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The guilt of the petitioner would be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence.

5.       The petitioner is behind the bars ever since after his, arrest and no more required to the investigating agency for the purpose of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served while keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

6.       Resultantly, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Petition allowed


[1].      Muhammad Aslam versus The State and others 2023 SCMR 397 and “Gul Muhammad versus The Son 2023 SCMR 857.