1990 PLP 1065 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.‑‑‑Respondent No. 1 Khalid Mehmood alongwith two others, namely, Muhammad Nawaz alias Gulla and Mst. Bilquis is standing trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot for committing the offence under section 16 of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. for causing the murder of Mst. Abida Parveen by throwing sulphuric acid on her causing severe burns on her person.

2. The case set up against the respondent No. 1 and the other co‑accused (not before this Court) in the F.I.R., initially lodged on 2‑5‑1988 at 8.00 a.m. at Police Station Ugokhi of District Sialkot by the complainant Salim Nasir, brother of the deceased Mst. Abida Parveen, is that Mst. Bilqees had been acting as go between deceased Abida Parveen and the ‑ respondent Khalid Mehmood. On 2‑5‑1988 at about 11‑00 a.m. co‑accused Muhammad Nawaz alias Gulla came to the house of the complainant and told Mst. Abida Parveen that his sister Mst. Bilqees was calling her. Mst. Abida Parveen obliged and left with him. As however, Mst. Abida Parveen did not return after she had been away for a few hours her brother, the complainant‑petitioner Salim Nasir Went to the house of co‑accused Muhammad Nawaz but neither his sister Abida Parveen nor the said co‑accused Muhammad Nawaz were present in the house. The complainant searched for Mst. Abida Parveen and was informed by PWs Mujahid Hussain and Miad Parvez that they had seen Abida Parveen in the company of Khalid Mehmood and his co‑accused standing at the bus‑stand. It was also said that Mst. Abida Parveen had taken with her some ornaments and Rs.4,000 in cash.

3. Later, dead body of Mst. Abida Parveen was found in the field in village Pakki Kotli on 4‑5‑1988 and her post‑mortem examination showed that she had received acid burns. Vaginal swabs were also taken but they were found not to be stained with semen.

4. During the investigation complainant, on 25‑7‑1988, produced before the Investigating Officer a letter calling it as a love letter alleged to have been written by the accused Khalid Mehmood to Mst. Abida Parveen.

5. It was further alleged by the prosecution that accused Khalid Mehmood had made extra judicial confession before Ch. Allah Ditta and Muhammad Arshad, who met him in the jail, that he had killed Abida Parveen as she had rejected him .as her lover and had married another person.

6. The accused Muhammad Nawaz alias Guila, Khalid Mehmood and Mst. Bilqees applied for bail to the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who refused bail to all the accused by his order dated 11‑‑10‑1989. Accused Khalid Mehmood thereafter applied for bail in the Lahore High Court and the learned Single Judge in the High Court finding that the case was fit for further, enquiry granted bail to Khalid Mehmood respondent vide his order dated 5‑12‑1988.

7. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail by the Lahore High Court to the respondent Khalid Mehmood, the complainant Salim Nasir filed petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent Khalid Mehmood. Leave was granted to the complainant Salim Nasir by this Court on 1‑3‑1989 and non‑bailable warrants were ordered to issue against the respondent No.1 Khalid Mehmood for being present in Court on the date of hearing of the appeal.

8. Mr. Nemat Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner Salim Nasir contended that as the trial of the case had started and evidence was being led, the order passed by this Court on 1‑3‑1989 while granting leave, as a result whereof non‑bailable warrants were issued against the respondent and he is presently in custody, be maintained and, in fairness to the accused, a direction be given to the trial Court to conclude the trial within two months, failing which the respondent Khalid Mehmood may be allowed to move the trial Court for bail afresh, to which Mr. S. Abul Asim Jafri, learned counsel for the respondent Khalid Mehmood agreed.

9. In the circumstances of the case we consider that the course adopted by both the learned counsel is only proper. Accordingly, while maintaining the order dated 1‑3‑1989 passed by this Court at the time of granting leave in pursuance whereof the respondent is presently in custody, we direct the trial Court to conclude the trial of this case within two months, failing which it shall be open to the respondent Khalid Mehmood to apply for bail afresh to the trial Court who shall decide it on merits according to law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./S‑502/S Order accordingly.