AYESHA Versus State
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. ---Ayesha daughter of Muhammad Nadeem Iqbal, presently confined in Central Prison, Karachi, seeks bail from this Court, in crime Case No.186/2013, under sections 302/412/34, P.P.C. registered at Baloch Colony Police Station, Karachi as her earlier Bail Application was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 17.03.2018.
2. Succinct facts of prosecution case as narrated in the FIR are that on 12.7.2013 nephew of complainant through phone informed him that Waseem met with an accident at his house and Ayesha wife of Waseem is in the house of her neighborer and weeping a lot. Then complainant contacted one Jibran, a friend of Waseem, to ascertain the actual facts. After about ten minutes the said Jibran informed the complainant that he found Waseem dead while his hand and legs were tied with rope. Complainant then reached Karachi by Air and found the dead body of his son Waseem in Edhi Cold Storage, after his post mortem. Complainant then lodged the FIR against unknown culprits.
3. On registration of the FIR, the police carried out investigation, arrested the accused and on completion of usual investigation submitted the charge sheet before the trial court.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that name of the present applicant is not appearing in the FIR nor any specific role has been assigned to the applicant; the applicant was arrested on 13.07.2013 and since then she is behind the bars and during such period the prosecution has only examined only six PWs out of 19 PWs hence on the ground of statutory delay the applicant is entitled for the concession of bail. He further submitted that the evidence against the present applicant consists of her confessional statement recorded on 22.07.2013, recovery of crime weapon i.e. Churri on her pointation and plea of her guilt through her written statement dated 07.02.2014 filed before the learned trial court. He argued that plea of guilt is illegal and carries no evidentiary value as according to him the applicant was misguided by her previous counsel and she was told that if she would plead guilty she would be exonerated in this case; her confessional statement was recorded after nine days of her arrest which clearly demonstrates that same is not voluntary and matter requires further inquiry. He further argued that recovery on the pointation of the present applicant has not been proved in accordance with law hence the confession is not supported by the recovery of incriminating material; further, an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was also moved on behalf of the applicant for summoning and recalling the PW -1 to PW-6 as they were not cross-examined by the applicant or her counsel which was allowed by the trial court. He next argued that in this case one of the accused namely Imtiaz Shah has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2013 and being lady accused under the rule of consistency the present applicant is also entitled for grant of bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for applicant/accused placed his reliance on the case law reported as Zambeer v. The State (2013 MLD 997), Muhammad Israr and another v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ 1072), Naheed Akhtar v. The State (2015 YLR 1279), Zameer v. The State (2012 YLR 477), Syed Hasnain Raza Zaidi v. The State (2012 YLR 1496) and Taj Muhammad and another v. The State (2011 PCr.LJ 1910).
5. Conversely, learned ADPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the crime weapon has been recovered on her pointation and the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon the Muhammad Siddique v. Imtiaz Begum and 2 others (2002 SCMR 442), Saeed Ahmed v. Iqbal Ahmed and another (2008 PCr.LJ 1259) and Syed Muhammad Roban Shah and others v. The State and others (2005 PCr.LJ 319).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned ADPP and counsel for the complainant and perused the record with their assistance, tentative assessment of which shows that the applicant in connivance with the co-accused had caused brutal murder of her husband, which does not fall within proviso (3) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and falls within the ambit of proviso (4) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It may not be out of place to mention here that at bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing/ in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail as held in the case of Yar Muhammad v. The State and another (2004 YLR 2230). Perusal of progress report submitted by the trial court shows that the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses while one PW was given up. So far as the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being lady accused is behind the bars since five years and entitled for concession of bail, in the circumstances of the case and material available on the record the same does not carry any weight as perusal of progress report shows that trial is going to conclude the evidence.
7. In view of whatever mentioned above, I reached at the irresistible conclusion that at this tentative assessment, reasonable grounds exist to connect the applicant with the crime in question more particularly her case is not at par to the case of the co-accused Imtiaz Shah therefore she is not entitled for concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency as well. Consequently, the instant bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at an earliest.
8. Before parting, it needs not to make clarification that the observations recorded above are tentative in nature, therefore, the trial court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever.
MQ/A-126/Sindh Bail refused.