KARACHI: A domestic help was held on Wednesday within the premises of the City Courts after his pre-arrest bail application was rejected by a sessions court in the case pertaining to sexual abuse of a teenage girl in her DHA phase-6 residence. The man had been employed at the complainant’s residence for the past six months. Earlier, he had worked there between 2008 and 2018 and around six months ago he had returned to the house as a domestic help. He was on duty twenty-four seven. The suspect filed an application before Additional District and Sessions Judge (South) Abdul Zahoor Chandio, seeking pre-arrest bail. According to the complainant’s counsel, Muhammad Jibran Nasir, his client informed the police that on October 15, while she was in her room, the housekeeper entered her room without permission and sexually abused her. As she resisted, the suspect managed to escape from the house. She further stated that she immediately informed her mother, who was sitting in the TV lounge. Subsequently, a complaint was registered against the suspect. After hearing both sides, the court rejected the pre-arrest bail application and recalled its interim order, stating that the suspect was “not entitled to extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail”. However, when the court pronounced its order, the suspect managed to escape from the courtroom, but he was apprehended by police within the premises of the City Courts. “The contents of FIR reflected that the victim girl narrated each and every scenario of the incident in FIR as well as in her 164 CrPC statement,” the court observed. It further added that the survivor’s version of her resistance was corroborated by her mother and other witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the criminal procedure code (CrPC). During the proceeding, state prosecutor Irfana Qadri opposed the confirmation of the pre-arrest plea. She contended that the complainant being a young girl was sexually abused, harassed and assaulted by the applicant being house help in her home. She stated that the suspect was allegedly pressuring the survivor’s family to withdraw the case by threatening them over the phone, a claim that can be corroborated through call record data and statements from the family members, she added. Defence counsel Qadir Khan contended that the FIR was registered after a delay. He claimed that his client was falsely implicated in the case after he had asked for his salary which was allegedly not given by the complainant’s mother for the past two months. However, the court rejected the defence plea and noted that delay in lodging an FIR in cases involving honour was not sufficient to consider a bail plea if the ocular account was supported with other material evidence. Regarding the false implication, the court observed: “The applicant served in the house of the victim for a long period and he again joined the job there at his own request so the claim regarding non-payment of salary for two months is not attracting the prudent mind so the claim of the applicant regarding his false implication not attracting the present situation. Therefore, no mala fide appears on the part of the complainant unless proven otherwise in evidence.”