Mst. IRAM GUL Alias KOMIL IJAZ Alias AINI vs THE STATE

ORDER

Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C: the petitioner seeks her bail after arrest in case F.I.R. 184 of 2001, dated 6-11-2001 under sections 302/365/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police. Station Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Lahore on the statements of Mst. Nusrat Afzal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is resident of 206-Mehran Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore stated that on 3-11-2001 at about 10-00 p.m. Irfan accused came to the house bf-complainant and asked servant of complainant that he wanted to see Dr. Muhammad Afzal, husband of complainant. It was replied that he could see the Doctor on next morning, but on his insistence Dr. Muhammad Afzal went alongwith Muhammad Irfan on a Car Honda Civic LXM-398 and did not return. The complainant when searched for Dr. Muhammad Afzal was told that the husband of complainant had been abducted by Muhammad Irfan, Muhammad Shahzad, Allah Ditta, Saleem, Maria and Komal Ijaz (petitioner). It is further-alleged that she, her servant Muhammad. Farooq and her son had seen them and claimed that she could identify the accused.

2-A. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with a delay of tree days without any explanation and it is a case in which no motive whatsoever has been alleged against the petitioner or other co-accused. He further contends the case is based on last seen evidence, which is not only sufficient but is also self-contradictory as Mst. Maria, Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Yasin and Muhammad Shehzad, co-accused have been declared innocent and in the investigation it is concluded that the said accused had not abducted Dr. Muhammad Afzal. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has been involved due to the reason that she happens to be were of co-accused Muhammad Irfan. It is further contended that she is woman of 19 years of age and her case falls within first proviso and is also covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. As no sufficient evidence has been collected to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainant has opposed this case and has stated that Faqir Hussain and Abdul Qayyum, two witnesses have stated that they had seen the petitioner alongwith two co-- accused in the company of deceased. It is further contended that the owner of the house Muhammad Walayat has also made a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 3-11-2001 that the petitioner alongwith her husband had taken the house on rent and Dr. Ghulam Mujtaba has also stated that the prescription of tablets was written by him on asking of petitioner while Muhammad Amin states that on 27-10-2001 the tablets were purchased by the petitioner. It is, further contended that the petitioner was arrested on 29-11-2001 and one-ring has been recovered from her, hence she is not entitled to concession of bail.

4. The learned State Counsel has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for complainant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The evidence against the petitioner is the statements of two witnesses Faqir Hussain and Abdul Qayyum recorded under section 161, Cr. P. C. Who have allegedly lastly seen the petitioner in the company of deceased alongwith her husband and one Allah Ditta. The other evidence is in the shape of statement of Walayat and the statements of Ghulam Mujtaba and Muhammad Amin. These statements on the face of it are insufficient, prima facie, for the time being to connect the petitioner with commission of the crime. Sufficient grounds do not exist to believe that the petitioner is guilty of murder of the deceased. The petitioner, even otherwise is a woman and her case falls within the first proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. She is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.