Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN Versus State

ORDER

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--- The applicant is seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered against her at Police Station Sir Syed, Karachi, initiated by lodging FIR No. 08 of 2017 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting enlightened by the valued submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and learned DPG, as well as scanning of the available record, I have observed as under:-

(a) The allegation against the applicant is that she with her son Imtiaz and other inmates participated in the murder of her daughter-in-law namely Aisha Zia daughter of complainant Shaikh Ziauddin by stimulating her and then giving it an incident of suicide.

(b) The alleged incident was taken place on 05-01-2017 at about 01:30 hours and reported on the same day with a delay of about 15 hours at 16:25 hours.

(c) The applicant is arrested on the day of lodging of FIR and since then she is continuously under custody, as such, more than one and half years passed in jail.

(d) The applicant is a woman of old age and allegedly she is suffering from diabetic, hypertension, arthritis and other age relating diseases.

(e) Previously, her bail application was declined vide order dated 15-12-2017 with the directions to trial court to dispose of the case within a period of three months but the said direction could not be complied with.

(f) From the record annexed with the instant bail application, it appears that the delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant.

(g) The other lady accused namely Ambreen was admitted to bail by the trial Court and the allegations levelled against the applicant in respect of the alleged offence appears to be identical to that of the co-accused, whom bail was granted by the trial court.

(h) Being a woman, the case of the applicant falls under third proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. In view of the above observation, I am confident that a case of bail has been made out in favour of the applicant, as such, she is entitled to post arrest bail in the instant case.

4. The ultimate outcome of the above discussion is that since the applicant is entitled to bail; therefore, she is admitted to bail subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) only and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court through my short order dated 27-10-2018 and these are the reasons for the same.

5. Before parting, I would like to further observe that if the applicant after getting bail will not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that she has absconded away then the trial Court is fully authorised to take every action against her and her surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.

MQ/Z-13/Sindh Bail allowed.