2020 PLP 1508 (MLD)

TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.

Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.239/2019 dated 13.7.2019 registered at Police Station Saddar Yazman, District Bahawalpur, for offences under Sections 324/336/337- F(i)/201/148/149 P.P.C.

2. As per FIR, the prosecution case is that the Complainant was married to Rabia Bibi. The lady used to quarrel with him and his family and about one month before the alleged incident she went to her parents' house in Chak No.94/DB and also instituted a suit for recovery of maintenance in the Family Court at Yazman. On 13.7.2019, Petitioner Razia Bibi, who is Complainant's mother-in-law, made a phone call asking him to come to the canal bank in Chak No.94/DB so that she could help a settlement between him and Rabia Bibi. The Complainant went to the specified place but as soon as he got there Rabia Bibi and six others who were hiding in the bushes came out. The Petitioner grabbed him by the neck while co-accused Allah Ditta held his legs. Rabia Bibi had a knife with which she amputated his penis. After that all the accused fled away taking Complainant's penis with them. The Complainant's screams attracted PWs Maqsood Ahmad, Muhammad Zaman Khan and Riaz who took him to the THQ Hospital, Yazman.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Complainant had falsely implicated her in thc instant case due to ulterior motives. He contended that there was not an iota of evidence to connect her with the offence. He prayed that this application be accepted and the Petitioner be admitted to post-arrest bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the Complainant vehemently opposed this application. He contended that the Petitioner was one of the principal accused in the case. It was she who deceitfully called the Complainant to the place of occurrence where he was attacked and grievously hurt. He maintained that the prosecution case was fully corroborated by medical evidence. The Petitioner and her co-accused had committed a heinous offence by amputating Complainant's vital organ and was not entitled to any leniency. He prayed for dismissal of this application.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The prosecution case, as already stated, is that the Petitioner made a phone call to the Complainant asking him to come to the place of occurrence for reconciliation. However, neither the phone number has been mentioned in the FIR nor any call data is available on record. More importantly, there is a contradiction in the FIR and the history of the incident mentioned in the MLC of the Complainant which he gave to the doctor at the time of his medical examination. In the former he stated that the Petitioner alone clenched him by neck but in the hospital he told the Medical Officer that two women and four men jointly held him by neck. All these circumstances call for further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. to determine the Petitioner's guilt. 8(sic). The Petitioner is behind the bars since 27-8-2019 and is not required by the police for any further investigation. Her continuous incarceration could not serve any useful purpose. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is a woman and the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. envisages concession in the matter of bail for female accused irrespective of the gravity of the offences. Reliance is placed on "Mst. Raeesa v. The State" (1985 PCr.LJ 2823), "Mst. Zebo v. The State" (1989 PCr.LJ 594), "Nasim Akhtar v. The State" (2005 YLR 2870) and "Mst. Nasreen v. The State" (2006 YLR 2775).

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this application is accepted. The Petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. SA/R-5/L Bail granted