1999 PLP 2389 (YLR)

Through Daily Diary No.10 of Police Post Gavaleedi, dated 19‑1‑1998 matter was reported to the police by Mst. Badri Jamala (now the .petitioner), wherein she stated that her husband Abu Saeed has committed suicide. The cause of death being unnatural, the police was to make inquiry in terms of section 174, Cr.P.C.

2. Later, during the course of investigation it transpired that Abu Saeed deceased of the case was done to death by Khan Badshah, Qavi and Mst. Badri Jamala. Motive has been elaborately given in F.I.R. No.31 of Police Station Matta Swat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail on the following grounds:‑‑ (a) She being a woman, grant of bail to a female is the general rule while refusal is an exception. Reliance was placed on 1991 MLD 1814. (b) That there is no tangible evidence/material on the file through which the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the crime even remotely can be established. (c) That in the statements of Muhammad Ayub Khan brother of the deceased and Mst. Bibi Zuhra his sister, the petitioner is only suspected to be involved in the case but with no proof. (d) That co‑accused namely, Khan Badshah and Qavi have since been released on bail, hence by application of rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to bail.

4. On 20‑8‑1998 the case was adjourned due to absence of Mst. Bibi Zuhra who has now become complainant of the case and is respondent before us. Today, we have received the report (placed on file) of the S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station according to which Mst. Bibi Zuhra has shifted her abode to Karachi for the last four months and her exact address is not known. Therefore, as there appear no prospects of securing her attendance in the near future, we have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, both on behalf of the State and the complainant.

5. Learned Additional Advocate- General submitted that petitioner cannot claim bail as of right on the ground of being a lady. Next, that rule of consistency does not apply; that the conduct of the petitioner would rather suggest that she is the main accused in the case and hence not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that the petitioner, prima facie', appears to be involved in the commission of the crime. It was she who reported the matter, to the police and in that has categorically stated that her husband has committed suicide. She has also stated that her husband was not sane and would have lunatic attacks. Meaning thereby that she wanted others to believe that the unnatural death of the deceased was at the hands of the deceased himself and none else. The dead body was buried without any external examination by the doctor, that was also on the request of the' present petitioner. It appears from the record that later the dead body was examined and as many as 12 fire‑arm injuries were found on the person of the deceased, of which six are the entry wounds and the rest exit.

7. A bare perusal of the medical report shows that bulk of injuries were on the back of the deceased which cannot be caused by a person unto himself. From the present record and by looking into the conduct of the petitioner, we are of the view that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail as there appear reasonable grounds to believe that she is guilty of the offence for which the punishment would fall within the prohibitory clause as contained in section 497, Cr.P.C. The application being devoid of force, the same is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./446/P Bail application dismissed.