2014 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

Mst. Nooran Bibi alias Bano (petitioner) seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.844 of 2012 dated 20-7-2012 registered for offences under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Nashtar Colony, Lahore.

2. Precisely, the prosecution case, as narrated by Muhammad Aslam (complainant) is that his son Mudassar alias Babu contracted marriage with Mst. Ansa daughter of Riaz Ahmad (accused) without the blessings of her parents; Riaz Ahmad (accused) telephonically contacted his son and asked him to visit his dera who went to the said place where Riaz Ahmad and Tawakal joined by an unknown accused committed his murder at about 5-00 p.m. on 20-7-2012; Mst. Bano Bibi (also known as Mst. Nooran Bibi petitioner ) earlier to the occurrence, visited his house, met her daughter Mst. Ansa Bibi and told her that she was going to a hospital to fetch medicine; he on receipt of the information qua the occurrence reached the spot and found the dead body of his son lying in the courtyard of the dera of the accused, smeared with blood; he firmly believed that Mst. Bano Bibi (petitioner) was also involved in the occurrence.

3. The complainant produced Muhammad Ashraf and Ali Sher before the Investigating Officer on 16-4-2012 who rendered their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. and contended that Mst. Bano Bibi while visiting the house of the complainant spoke in a whisper with her daughter Mst. Ansa that she and her husband had decided to murder Mudassar alias Babu. Interestingly, the names of above-said witnesses have not been cited in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and she has been falsely involved in this case only due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant who was aggrieved of the marriage of his son with Mst. Ansa as he did so without his consent; further submits that the names of the witnesses of abetment are not mentioned in the F.I.R. and they joined the investigation belatedly.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the accused-petitioner is fully involved in the crime alleged, as she murmured in the ear of her daughter immediately before the occurrence that they had planned to dispose of her husband; the petitioner was found involved in the occurrence during the course of investigation and her name has been placed in column No.3 of the challan.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant has simply shown his 'firm belief' about the alleged involvement of the accused/petitioner in this case and he failed to hint at any evidence in the F.I.R. as to how the accused lady had abetted the occurrence. Mere expression of 'firm belief' by the complainant cannot be equated with an admissible piece of evidence as it simply shows that he speculated about the involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The witnesses Ashraf and Ali Sher joined the investigation on 16-11-2012, more than four months after the occurrence and offered no explanation as to the period they kept silent. Muhammad Ashraf happens to be real brother of the complainant, whereas, Ali Sher is a relation to Muhammad Ashraf. Had any such dialogue, as mentioned above, taken place between the petitioner and her daughter Mst. Ansa and taken notice of by the witnesses, they being related to the complainant, should have disclosed this fact to him at the earliest. The massive unexplained delay in joining the investigation by the said witnesses, certainly reflects on the veracity of allegation of abetment, against the petitioner. The false implication of the petitioner due to malice and ulterior motives of the complainant, in the backdrop of the circumstances, mentioned hereinabove, cannot be ruled out. No doubt, the scope of bail before arrest is narrow but not to be rendered narrower on flimsy grounds and it should be effectively stretched to its limits in a case where an innocent person faces the ostensible danger of being arrested by the police for some tainted purpose, as designed by the complainant. Being a female accused, the case of the petitioner is covered by section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Sufficient reasons exist to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into her guilt as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

7. Resultantly, the instant application is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30-11-2012 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/N-10/L Bail confirmed.