2004 PLP 65 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 24th June, 2003. Kazim son of Mian Khan and Azhar son of Bahoo both Harral by Caste and both resident, of Moza Chakbandi, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang have applied for their post‑arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No.78 of 2003 registered under sections 364/302/201, P.P.C. at police .Station Saddar Chiniot.

2. The allegation against the petitioners was that on 13‑2‑2003 at the time of eventide they were seen by Allah Yar, Inayat and Muhammad Sarwar while dragging and taking away Mst. Zahida Bibi daughter of Mian Khan resident of Moza Chakbandi Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang towards Canal Jhang Branch. When Allah Yar and others tried to step forwards Kazim and Azhar threatened them with dire consequences as they were carrying their own sister. Mst. Zahida Bibi had developed illicit relations with Naveed son of Muhammad Ali resident of Chak No. 129 G.B. Mst. Zahida Bibi could not be traced out, therefore, Allah Yar got this case registered on 18‑2‑2003. Later on it transpired during investigation that after committing the Qatl‑i‑Amd of Mst. Zahida Bibi her dead body was cut into pieces and thrown into canal.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the petition for post‑arrest bail on behalf of the present petitioners recorded the statements of Allah Yar complainant, Muhammad Inayat, Muhammad Sarwar, Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Yusuf who were material prosecution witnesses. They did not support the prosecution case. Anyhow the bail was refused to them on the basis of this observation that the petitioners have committed offence of serious nature and the prosecution witnesses may have been won over by the accused, therefore, he is not satisfied with the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argues that there is delay of at last 5 days in lodging the F.I.R. which itself is sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution story as on the day of occurrence if the petitioners were seen while dragging the deceased lady the complainant should have got the case registered on the same day; that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case as their affidavit are attached with this petition and they are present in the Court. Moreover their statements were recorded before the learned trial Court and they did not support the prosecution case, therefore, when no material witness was left behind, it was a case of further enquiry and that, even otherwise if the contents of the F.I.R. are taken into consideration it would appear that the question of Ghairat was involved as the deceased lady was sister of Kazim petitioner, therefore, it is a fit case for bail. On the other hand the learned State counsel opposed this petition for bail and submitted that since the offence falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., it is not a fit case for bail.

5. The perusal of the order dated 8‑5‑2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chiniot would reveal that he recorded the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and it is an admitted fact that the witnesses did not support prosecution case. The point for examination is as to what benefit tan be given to the petitioners/accuse at this stage. Certainly in absence of any material on the record connecting the petitioners with the commission of offence, this situation would give birth to a doubt and even at this stage the Court is bound to see as to what is the fate of this case in future or as to whether there is any probability left behind to convict the accused persons. When the prosecution witnesses are not supporting the prosecution case, it means that nothing has been left behind therefore, the observation would be that it is a case of future enquiry. Consequently the petitioners Kazim and Azhar mentioned above are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. The petition is hereby accepted. H.B.T./K‑262/L Bail granted.