SAIMA ZAKA Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Saima Zaka has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 346/2016 dated 13.09.2016 under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Farooqabad, Sheikhupura.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It is noticed that initially the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR as PW whereas her husband was complainant of this case but she along with her husband was involved as an accused on the statement of PW Huraira Bibi recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2016 after about one month and seventeen days of the occurrence that the petitioner threw the deceased Fouzia Rakhshanda on the ground by holding her hairs and the fact why she has remained mum for such a period has cast serious doubt about the involvement of petitioner in this case. It is settled law that delayed statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have got little value. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486). It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not caused any injury to any of the deceased, hence, the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner or sharing common intention by her with her co-accused for committing murder of both the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125. The petitioner is a woman and because of her gender, her case falls within the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. She is behind the bars since 05.05.2017. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Her further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
MQ/S-17/L Bail granted.