2011 P Cr (PLP)

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.

Petitioner Mst. Razia Begum by way of the instant petition has prayed for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 101 registered under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. with Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha on 24-3-2010.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on the night between 23/24-3-2010, she out of illicit intimacy with her co-accused Muhammad Amjad, in furtherance of their common intention, has done to death her father-in-law Muhammad Siddique in order to remove him from their way.

3. It has been argued on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in; that she is not named in the F.I.R; that she has been implicated on the supplementary statement of complainant Karam Ali made on 25-3-2010; that there is no direct evidence against her; that there are no reasonable grounds to link her with the commission of the alleged offence; that she in fact had no motive to. do away with the deceased; that she, if at all, had intended to remove anyone from their way due to the alleged illicit intimacy between her and her co-accused, then he could be her husband and not the father-in-law; that nothing has been recovered from her; that` she is a woman; that she is behind the bars for the last about six months; and that she is previous non-convict.

4. Conversely, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that she along with her paramour Muhammad Amjad has done to death her father-in- law, who had come to know of the illicit intimacy between them; that she is named in the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 25-3-2010; and that she has committed a heinous offence and so is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Syed. Lakhat-e-Hasnain v. The State (2010 SCMR 855) and Shahzad Ahmad v. The State through F.I.A. Islamabad (2010 SCMR 1221).

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the record gone into.

6. The fact remains that that she is not named in the F.I.R. She allegedly has been roped in on the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded on 25-3-2010. The question of evidentiary value of such supplementary statement is a matter to be gone into at trial. Even otherwise, the same is carrying allegation of general nature against her. There is, admittedly, no direct evidence against her on the record to connect her with the crime alleged.

7. There are also on the record the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. of Muhammad Akbar, the son of the deceased and one Muhammad Ali. Similar is the position of their such statement.

8. In such circumstances, it is yet to be determined at trial that if she ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence. The question of her sharing common intention with her co-accused is also a similar matter.

9. Hence, I am clear in my mind that the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is amply attracted to her case requiring further inquiry into her guilt.

10. Besides than this she is a woman and statedly behind the bars for the last about six months.

11. I may say here that when case of an accused may be found to be one of further inquiry into his guilt, then he becomes entitled to bail as of right and not as grace and so, can't be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.

12. I may mention here that it is well-settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to be adjudged in the background of it's own facts and circumstances and the facts of the two criminal cases seldom coincide. The above case-law referred to by the side of the prosecution is not aptly applicable to her case.

13. The learned counsel for the complainant has informed that her trial has commenced with the framing of formal charge against her. In the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585). It has been held by their Lordships that when case of an accused may, otherwise, be found fit for bail, then mere commencement of trial cannot come as clog in the way of the same.

14. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that she has succeeded to make out a case for bail.

15. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit her to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the' sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

16. It is, however, clarified that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial. N.H.Q./R-72/L Bail allowed.