2010 PLP 152 (MLD)

ARSHAD MEHMOOD, J.

Mst. Shamim petitioner seeks her bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 172 of 2009, dated 28-5-2009 offence under sections 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal.

2. Prosecution story in short is that petitioner along with her co-accused committed murder of Muhammad Saleem Abid son of the complainant. Specific allegation against her is that she confessed her guilt before the Punchait that she is in possession of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased. She was arrested in the case on 1-6-2009 and after investigation had been sent to judicial lock up.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of about two months in the lodging of F.I.R. Adds that there is no direct evidence against the; petitioner. States further that in the last seen evidence petitioner was not present with the deceased. It was then argued that extrajudicial confession is the weakest type of evidence veracity whereof shall be determined at the time of trial. Learned counsel went on argue that- on the next day of occurrence i.e. 2-4-2009 cousin of the deceased got recoded rapt at the Police Station alleging therein that the deceased was murdered by unknown culprits and they have no enmity against any body, however, the instant F.I.R. was lodged after deliberations, therefore, case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry.

4. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed this application on the ground that petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. with the role of possessing mobile phone of the deceased. Adds that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was then argued that there is sufficient material on record in the shape of confession before a punchait against the petitioner to connect her with the commission of offence, therefore, she is not entitled to the grant of post arrest bail. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the complainant relied upon "Muhammad Bashir v. Mrs. Farhat Bibi and others" (2001 PCr.LJ 1582), "Mst Zubeda Bibi v. The State" (2000 YLR 2088); "Ghulam Fatima and another v. The State" (1987 PCr.LJ 1316, "Mst. Amina v. The State" (PLD 1989 Karachi 40), "Jalil Ahmad v. The State" 1995 PCr.LJ 1583 and "Malik Ibrar Hussain v. The State" (1995 PCr.LJ 2040).

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

6. Petitioner is a woman and wife of Muhammad Akram main accused against whom motive qua settlement of accounts with the deceased has been alleged. No doubt she is named in the F.I.R. but there is a delay of about two months in the lodging of F.I.R. which shows that the law was put in motion after due deliberations. No motive is attributed to the petitioner. She was not found by the complainant in the company of the deceased in the last seen evidence. Extra judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence veracity whereof shall be determined at the time of trial. Therefore, case against her is of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. She is behind the bars and her corpus is no more required for the purpose of investigation, therefore, her further incarceration will not serve any useful purpose. Case law referred to by learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable on facts as neither any motive has been alleged against her nor any specific role was attributed to her even in the extra judicial confession. Resultantly this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. H.B.T./S-262/L Bail granted.