2026 M L D 416

 2026 M L D 416

[Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court]

Before Mushtaq Muhammad, J

ALI SHAN---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE through Ammar Ali---Respondent

Criminal Misc. No. 384 of 2025, decided on 29th September, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 376, 377, 342, 506 & 34---

Rape, unnatural offence, wrongful confinement, criminal

intimidation, common intention---Bail, dismissal of---Allegations of

abduction and unnatural offence were levelled against the

accused/petitioner---Apparently the FIR suffered a delay of almost

twenty-seven days---Perusal of the document revealed that

complainant, a teenage boy, reported the egregious incident on 02-

07-2025 and had justified the said lapse of time by stating that he

was under serious threat extended by the accused/petitioner---

Keeping the said statement of the victimized boy, the record of the

case was examined---During the perusal of record, statement of

witness caught the attention---Said witness had corroborated the

statement of victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for

taking leverage---Said witness also stated about some video

recording of the alleged abhorrent incident and the alleged threat

of the accused/petitioner for displaying the same on social media---

Regarding abduction for un-natural lust, the statement of the victim

was corroborated by the witness---There was prima facie evidence

of abduction and un-natural offence on record and offence under S.

367-A, P.P.C provided capital punishment---Delay in lodging of the

report was explained by the complainant and same was

corroborated by the witness---Other point regarding age of the

accused/petitioner was not convincing---Keeping in view the

particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility was out of

consideration---Mere fact that accused/petitioner was a juvenile

could be considered in other offences, but in a case where the

accused was charged for un-natural offence and prima facie

evidence supported the allegation, it would be erroneous to declare

the accused a juvenile---Without recording and discussing this point

any further, lest the Trial Court would get influenced, the matter

was left at the discretion of Trial Court---However, keeping in view

the gravity of offences, the accused/petitioner could not be granted benefit of him being one year below the age of adulthood at this

stage---Bail application being devoid of merits was dismissed, in

circumstances.

Umair v. The State 2021 MLD 527 and Farman Ali v. The State and

another 2018 PCr.LJ 343 rel.

Muntazir Abbas for Petitioner.

Malik Sherbaz Khan Additional Advocate General for the State.

Complainant in person along with counsel Imtiaz Huassain.

Date of hearing: 29th September, 2025.

ORDER

MUSHTAQ MUHAMMAD, J.---Subsequent to the rejection of his

post arrest bail application in Crime No. 23/2025 by the learned

Session Judge Gilgit during summer vacations on 29-07-2025, the

accused/petitioner has filed his formal request for the same relief

before this Court, primarily on the grounds that prosecution's case

suffers from dearth of direct evidence on the particular allegation of

abduction and un-natural offence, that FIR suffers an unexplained

delay of twenty six days, that offence under sectopm 367-A, P.P.C does

not attract in the case for want of prompt report and same is an

afterthought subsequent to registration of Crime No.23/2025, that

accused/petitioner is seventeen years of age and besides the above,

investigation of the case is complete and accused/petitioner is in

judicial custody waiting for commencement of trial. Learned counsel

concluded his submissions that case against the accused/petitioner is

one of further inquiry therefore, he may be released on bail. Mr.

Muntazir Abbas advocate, in support of his submissions has placed

his reliance on the judgments cited, "Umair v. The State." (2021 MLD

527), "Farman Ali v. The State and another" (2018 PCr.LJ 343) and

"Muhammad Zeeshan Shani's Case" (2018 PLJ Cr.C 570).

2. In contrast to the above submissions, advanced by the learned

counsel for the accused/petitioner, the learned Addl. Advocate

General, ably assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant

Mr. Imtiaz Hussain advocate, contended that the accused/petitioner

is directly nominated in the FIR. They contended that medical

examination of the victim has already been conducted at DHQ

hospital Aliabad on the same day. They read out the report of victim

recorded by the doctor at said hospital. They further submitted that

samples have been collected for DNA examination. They added that

vehicle used during commission of the offense has been seized as

part of corroboratory evidence. They added further that eye-witness

of the occurrence Sherzad son of Akram has recorded his statement before the police and he categorically implicated the

accused/petitioner and his accomplice with specific reference of the

place of occurrence. Concluding their reply, they contended that

offence with which the accused/petitioner is charged, is one of

capital punishment and that the learned Session Judge has rightly

refused to grant the relief vide order dated 29.07.2025 and the same

does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional defect, therefore the

application in hand may not be accepted.

3. After meticulously considering the oral submissions advanced

by the learned counsel representing the accused/petitioner, the

complainant and the learned Addl. Advocate General, the Crime No.

23/2025 dated 02.07.2025 registered at P.S Aliabad, is thoroughly

examined.

Apparently the FIR No.23/2025 of P.S. Aliabad suffers a delay of

almost twenty-seven days. Perusal of the document reveals that

complainant a teenaged boy (vide the medical report of DHQ hospital

Aliabad) reported the egregious incident on 02-07-2025 and has

justified the said lapse of time that he was under serious threat

extended by the accused/petitioner. Keeping the said statement of

the victimized boy, the record of the case is examined. During the

perusal of record, statement of PW Latif Ahmed son of Ahmed Din

caught the attention. This PW has corroborated the statement of

victim boy regarding the alleged intimidation for taking leverage.

The said PW also stated about some video recording of the alleged

abhorrent incident and the alleged threat of the accused/petitioner

for displaying the same on social media.

4. Regarding abduction of a person for un-natural lust, the

statement of the victim is corroborated by the PW Sherzad. There is

prima facie evidence of abduction and un-natural offence on record

and offence under section 367-A, P.P.C provides capital punishment.

Delay in lodging of the report is explained by the complainant and

same is corroborated by the PW Latif Ahmed.

5. The argument of learned counsel for the accused/petitioner with

reference to another Crime No.18/2025 registered at P.S. Aliabad,

wherein the accused/petitioner is nominated for causing hurt to the

complainant Mr. Konain Abbas. Learned counsel made a point that

in both the FIRs of the same date, accused/petitioner is directly

charged therefore, the case in hand is one of further inquiry. The

argument is incorrect for the only reason that time of occurrence in

both the FIRs is different.

6. The other point regarding age of the accused/petitioner, is not

convincing. Keeping in view the particular nature of the offence, point of juvenility is out of consideration. The mere fact that

accused/petitioner is a juvenile can be considered in other offenses,

but in a case where the accused is charged for un-natural offence

and prima facie evidence supports the allegation, it would be

erroneous to declare the accused a juvenile. Without recording and

discussing this point any further, lest the trial court would influence,

the matter is left at the discretion of learned trial court. However,

keeping in view the gravity of offenses, the accused/petitioner cannot

be granted benefit of his being one year below the age of adulthood,

at this stage.

7. Case laws referred by the learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner perused. In the case cited, "Muhammad Zeeshan

alias Shani v. The State" (supra) bail was granted to the accused for

the alleged delay coupled with a negative medical report. Facts of

"Farman Ali's case" (supra) are distinguishable to that of present

case. In the judgment under reference learned single bench was

influenced with a negative medical report. Whereas, in the case in

hand there is positive medical report. In the case cited, "Umair v. The

State" (supra), bail was granted on the grounds of delayed FIR

coupled with negative medical report. Therefore, the judicial

pronouncements referred by the learned counsel for the

accused/petitioner are not applicable on all fours of the instant case,

therefore, same cannot be relied upon.

8. Keeping the above in view, this petition filed by the

accused/petitioner seeking post arrest bail in Crime No.23/2025 of

P.S. Aliabad District Hunza, being devoid of merits is hereby

dismissed. File.

JK/33/GB Application dismissed.