2012 PLP 480 (MLD)

ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.

Mst. Zaheera Bibi petitioner seeks her post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.182 dated 14-6-2011 for offence under section 302, P.P.C. registered in Police Station Lora, Abbottabad.

2. Brief facts, as narrated in the F.I.R. are that complainant Muhammad Zaman son of Muhammad Abbas on 12-6-2011 at 12-30 p.m. made report to the police in his house at village Chabgran where the dead body of his son Zahid Hussain deceased was also lying to the effect that he and his deceased son were working at Hotel in Islamabad and on 11-6-2011 came to village together; that his son is married and separately residing, who was asleep with her wife Mst. Zaheera Bibi and two minor children in a separate room; that in the morning at about 5-15 p.m. he heard noise and asked about reason of said noise from inmates of his house who told him that his son Zahid deceased become ill. On this information, he along with his family reached the house of his deceased son and saw him dead lying on a cot; that he inquired from his daughter-in-law Mst. Zaheera Bibi who told him that Zahid went outside the house at 12-00 night and returned back after 15/20 minutes and told her that some lady has quarreled with him and got injured; that he noticed bluish spot on the neck, ribs, back and injury beneath left foot of his deceased son. He did not charge any person in the report and asked for postmortem of dead body because he was suspecting murder of his son due to nature of injuries. After receipt of postmortem report and inquiry under section 174, Cr.P.C, case was registered against unknown culprits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused/petitioner is charged with a delay of twelve hours. He further submitted that in the F.I.R. the accused was not charged. According to learned counsel after three/four days of report, accused was charged in the supplementary statement. He further contended that the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. of two children of accused/petitioner are not believable as they are minors of the age of up to nine years.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments by submitting that accused/petitioner has made confession. The two children of the petitioner have given statements in which they clearly charged the petitioner for the offence. According to learned counsel, on the pointation of accused a scarf, which is weapon of offence, has also been recovered.

5. I have considered the arguments and have also gone through the record available on the file.

6. I would first discuss the fact of not charging the accused in the F.I.R. It is to be kept in mind that an accused is not entitled for bail only on the above fact. Circumstances are to be seen as to why an accused was not named in F.I.R. In this case, as mentioned in the F.I.R., the complainant was not an eye-witness, therefore, he could not name the accused. Later on, when he came to know, he charged the accused. Circumstances in this case are peculiar. I may rely on judgment of this court reported in 2004 YLR 3309, wherein it is held that:-- "No doubt it is true that the F.I.R. is silent regarding the names of the culprit/culprits and no one is charged for the offence in question but the fact cannot be lost sight of that prosecution has collected sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the guilt which disentitles hint for the concession of bail." So in this case the materials were collected later on the basis of which accused/petitioner was named.

7. Accused/petitioner has also made a confession before the competent forum on 15-6-2011. In the said statement, petitioner has clearly confessed her guilt and has also disclosed the mode and manner of offence. Though this confession has been retracted later on but this retraction would be thrashed out at the trial stage and not at bail stage. So this confession statement also connects the accused/petitioner with the offence.

8. It is also pointed out that on 15-6-2011 the police recovered scarf from the bath room of the house. This scarf was used as weapon of offence. The said recovery on the pointation of accused also connects her with the offence.

9. Moreover, the two children of the petitioner/accused have recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. in which they have deposed that the petitioner has committed the murder of their father. Though the statements were recorded with some delay, yet it itself is not sufficient to discard its value. No ulterior motive has been established at this stage. I may rely on 2011 PCr.LJ 1126.

10. In short, there is ample evidence against the accused/petitioner in the shape of her confession, evidence of her own children and recovery of weapon of offence, which connects her with the offence, so she is not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, bail is refused. H.B.T./342/P Bail refused.