Mst. SUMAIRA BIBI Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- Muhammad Hanif, the complainant of FIR No.760/15, dated 25.5.2015, under sections 302, 364, 201, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Liaqatabad (Lahore), has alleged that his sister Mst. Jannat Bibi was married to Malik Ghafoor on 16.1.2010, as his second wife; his first marriage with Mst. Firdaus Bibi bore three sons, Amir, Hamid and Hasnain; Malik Ghafoor's first wife, his sons Amir, Hamid and his brother Malik Khalid alias Nanni would threaten him that they would murder him, if he did not alienate his property to them and they did it so, when they fired at him on 26.4.2014 and he succumbed to the injuries at a hospital on 27.4.2014; the complainant's sister Mst. Jannat Bibi moved an application for registration of FIR about the murder of her husband, but failed, so she filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. on 22.5.2014 for the said purpose; it was at about 7.00 p.m. on 22.5.2014, when Malik Khalid alias Nanni Malik and others forcibly abducted his sister Mst. Jannat Bibi, Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) from their flat and removed them to some unknown place, so as to usurp the property of Malik Ghafoor; his sister was pregnant and her life was in danger; the accused would murder his sister as they had close contact with the hardcore criminals of the area.
The complainant rendered a supplementary statement on 2.6.2015, whereby he stated that the abductors had released Muhammad Rafique and his wife Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner), who admitted before him at 12.00 noon on 2.6.2015 that they had connived with the abductors in causing abduction of Mst. Jannat Bibi, who had been murdered by the accused afterwards. Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Khalil joined investigation on 2.6.2015 and contended before the investigating officer that Muhammad Rafique and Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) admitted before them on 2.6.2015 that they were involved in the abduction of Mst. Jannat Bibi and that the abductors had murdered her later on. Riasat Ali and Liaqat Ali appeared before the investigating officer on 3.3.2016 to state that Malik Khalid alias Nanni Malik, Amir, Hamid and two others visited them at 6.00 p.m. on 18.2.2016 and offered them a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- for withdrawing the cancellation of bail application, that had been moved by the complainant against Hamid and Amir before the High Court, besides, they demanded that the complainant should not ask for the return of Mst. Jannat Bibi, as they had murdered her and thrown her dead body in a canal; they also sought apology from them. Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) was arrested on 5.3.2016 and she got recovered some gold ornaments of the deceased, the same day, whereof a memo of identification was prepared by the police on 6.3.2016.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that circumstances of the alleged abduction of Mst. Jannat Bibi and her continuous disappearance are shrouded in mystery. According to the allegation, as it appeared in the FIR, Mst. Jannat Bibi had been abducted along with the petitioner and her husband Muhammad Rafique on 25.2.2014, but there is no evidence as to the said incident, except for the statements of Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Khalil, real brother of Mst. Jannat Bibi, who contended before the investigating officer on 2.6.2015 that they along with Muhammad Akhtar had witnessed the occurrence of abduction of Mst. Jannat Bibi, Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) and Muhammad Rafique, beside they introduced extra judicial confession of Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) and her husband Muhammad Rafique before them and Muhammad Hanif (complainant) on 2.6.2015. Muhammad Hanif (complainant) and Muhammad Khalil are not only real brothers inter-se but also that of Mst. Jannat Bibi, the missed/murdered person.
3. The complainant did not name any one as eye-witness in the FIR nor he himself claimed to have witnessed the alleged occurrence of abduction of his sister and two others including the petitioner. Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Khalil joined investigation belatedly, more than a year after the alleged occurrence, to claim themselves to be the eye-witnesses thereof. This claim may be as empty of credence as their contention about the extra-judicial confession of the petitioner and her husband, who allegedly admitted to have connived with the abductors and murderers of Mst. Jannat Bibi in committing the crime and after confession peacefully walked away without being intercepted by the said witnesses and the complainant, who too rendered a similar statement in this context on the same day, i.e. 2.6.2015. Even otherwise, it looked a joint confession of the accused. It has been held on countless occasions by the apex court as well as by this court that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, which may be manoeuvred by the prosecution, wherever direct connecting evidence did not come their way. A joint confession would render it a still weaker circumstance.
4. So far as the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the petitioner on 5.3.2016 is concerned, none of the said witnesses ever claimed that Mst. Jannat Bibi wore those ornaments when she was allegedly abducted. The evidentiary value of this piece of evidence may be assessed in better terms by the learned trial court after recording evidence of the parties at trial. At one stage, Mst. Sumaira Bibi (petitioner) rendered statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 30.5.2015. whereby she categorically denied to have ever been abducted by anyone. Being female, her case is covered by the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that her case called for further probe into her guilt within the scope of section 497(2), C.P.C.
5. Therefore, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
WA/S-72/L Bail allowed.