KANEEZ FATIMA Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.188/16 dated 10.03.2016 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Sadar Mandi Bahauddin.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage, therefore, without going into deeper appreciation of material available on the record, it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in FIR. She has been implicated by the complainant in this case through supplementary statement dated 02.08.2016 i.e. one month and twenty three days after the alleged occurrence that too without disclosing any plausible source of information on the basis of which she has been implicated in this case. It is settled law that evidentiary value of such type of supplementary statement shall be determined by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. Moreover, there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and the complainant has mentioned the names of two persons i.e. Tariq Mehmood and Akhtar as the witnesses of last seen, but besides their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. nothing is available on the file so as to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. Even the alleged witnesses of last seen did not approach the investigating officer or the complainant within reasonable time so as to disclose that they had seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner and her co-accused and ultimately they got recorded their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 02.08.2016. Prima facie there is no justification as to why they kept mum for such considerable period of one month and twenty three days. Apart from the above, by virtue of her gender, the case of the petitioner is covered by first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is settled law that vicarious liability of the petitioner for the murder of deceased shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. She is behind the bars since 19.10.2016 but her trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Investigation of the case is complete and she is no more required for further investigation, therefore, her further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner is covered by first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (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.
WA/K-4/L Bail granted.