PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has granted bail to three juvenile suspects charged with sexually assaulting and blackmailing a 10-year-old boy in Swat.

A single-member bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar accepted three separate petitions filed by the suspects on condition of furnishing two sureties each of Rs200,000.The petitioners were charged in an FIR registered on complaint of the alleged victim, who had visited Mingora police station on June 8, 2022, along with his father.

The FIR was registered under sections 377 and 506 of Pakistan Penal Code and section 53 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act.

The complainant stated that around 10 months ago the three petitioners caught hold of him outside his home by covering his mouth with hands and took him to the drawing room of one of them.

He alleged that the three petitioners sexually assaulted him and also recorded the incident on one of their cellular phones. He alleged that after the incident, the petition-ers had been continuously sexually abusing him at the same place of occurrence by blackmailing him through his objectionable video footage.

The complainant alleged that the last time he was abused on June 3, 2022 after which he informed his father about the issue as he became dejected and depressed due to continuous blaclcmailing of the three petitioners.

The petitioners` counsel Mohammad Amin Khan contended that his clients were falsely charged in the instant case and there was no evidence on record to connect them with the commission of the so-called offence.

The bench observed that thealleged victim was examined by a doctor, who neither declared him to be a continuous victim of the act against course of nature, nor reported any sign of injury on the body of the victim.

The bench observed that the medical report of the victim did not support the version of prosecution and it was for the trial court to reach at a fair and just conclusion regarding culpability of the petitioners for the offence of sexual abuse after recording the evidence of prosecution specially the statement of the victim.

The bench further observed whether the victim was a `child at risk` or otherwise as contemplated under section 2 (1) of the KP Child Protection and Welfare Act was another question, which would bedetermined by the trial court in the light of evidence.

Moreover, about the allegations against the petitioners with regard to making objectionable video of the victim, the bench observed that the record showed that though mobile phone of one of the petitioners, through which he had allegedly made the video, had been taken into possession by police but it was found that the video had been deleted from the phone, hence at the moment no evidence was available on record in support of the said allegation against the petitioners.

The bench observed that as the petitioners were below 18 years of age on that ground too they were entitled to the concession of ball.