2005 PLP 560 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S.497(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/109‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑ Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused was not present at the scene of crime at the relevant time but he was charged with responsibility of providing behind‑the‑scene abetment to his co‑accused‑‑‑No witness of said alleged abetment had been mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑ Female accused was allegedly present at the spot during occurrence and had allegedly raised Lalkara‑‑‑Both said accused happened to be the parents of main accused‑‑‑Possibility regarding throwing the net wide by complainant party could not safely be ruled out‑‑‑Mother, the main accused, being female, case against her would attract provisions of first Proviso to subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑ Challan had already been submitted after completion of investigation‑‑‑Continued custody of accused persons in jail was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose‑‑ Case against both accused calling for further inquiry into their guilt, they were admitted to bail. Dr. Ehsan‑ul‑Haq Khan and Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah Ajmeri for Petitioners (in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.8017‑B and 8018‑B of 2004). Sheikh Khalid Habib for the State with Muhammad Hussain, S.‑I. with Record (in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.8017‑B and 8018‑B of 2004). Through this consolidated order I propose to decide Criminal Miscellaneous No.8017‑B of 2004 filed by Jafar Ali alias Rafique petitioner and Criminal Miscellaneous No.8018‑B of 2004 preferred by Mst. Khursheed Bibi petitioner together as both the above mentioned petitioners have sought post‑arrest bail in the same criminal case, i.e. case F.I.R. No.193 registered at Police Station, Malka Hans, District Pakpattan Sharif on 10‑6‑2004 for offences under sections 302/324/148/149/109, P. P. C.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed by me that admittedly Jafar Ali alias Rafique petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and he only stands saddled with the responsibility of providing behind‑the‑scene abetment to his co‑accused. No witness of the alleged abetment had been mentioned in the F.I.R. As far as Mst. Khursheed Bibi petitioner is concerned she too had allegedly provided abetment to her co‑accused and she had additionally been alleged to be present at the spot during the alleged occurrence and had allegedly raised a Lalkara. Both Jafar Ali alias Rafique and Mst. Khursheed Bibi petitioners happen to be the parents of the main accused in this case and, thus, a possibility regarding throwing the net wide by the complainant party cannot safely be ruled out of consideration at this stage. Mst. Khursheed Bibi petitioner is a woman and, thus, the case against her attracts the provisions of the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.

3. For what has been discussed above the case against both the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt. Both the above mentioned petitions are, therefore, allowed and Jafar Ali alias Rafique and Mst. Khursheed Bibi petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bends in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./K‑75/L & J‑53/L Bail granted