ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI.

Cr. Bail. Appl. No.857 of 2017

Date	Order with signature of Judge

For hearing of bail application.

10.07.2017.

          Malik Muhammad Tarique Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Ahteshamullah Khan, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr. Muntazir Mehdi A.P.G

=

MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO J: Applicants are seeking post arrest bail in crime No.74/2017 U/s 302,114 PPC registered at P.S. Khuwaja Ajmir Nagri Karachi.

2.       Initially the FIR of the incident was registered u/s 324, 34 PPC on the statement of the deceased herself in which she has stated that on the day of incident viz. 13.03.2017 at 1930 to 2000 hours, her husband and her mother-in-law set her on fire after beating her and when she screamed, the applicants No.1 to 4, who are her sisters in law and brother in law and are living on ground floor of the house came up in her room on the supper floor, but instead of taking her to hospital for treatment, left her there for dying; and only after she promised not to disclose the incident to anyone, she was brought at her Aunt’s house first and from there to some private hospital and ultimately she was admitted in Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. The deceased died of burn injuries on 28.03.2017. Meanwhile, the applicants were arrested on 18.05.2017.

3.       Learned defence counsel has argued that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case; that deceased had committed suicide by putting herself on fire, and only at the instance of her mother, she got her the statement recorded and implicated the applicants and her husband; that there is delay of eight days in recording statement of deceased which, thus, is not reliable. Learned counsel has further stated that insofar as applicants No.1 to 4 are concerned, the only allegation against them is that they did not take the deceased to the hospital and left her in the room for dying. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied upon case law reported in PLJ 2016 Cr. C 858, 1996 SCMR 993, 1989 SCMR 202, 1998 MLD 1350 and 2009 P Cr. L J 797.

5.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned APG have opposed bail to the applicants on the ground that they are nominated in the FIR and in the statement of the MLO, before whom the statement of the deceased was recorded and which later on turned out be the dying declaration of the deceased. In support of their arguments, they have relied upon the case law reported in PLD 1986 Quetta 26,

6.       I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the statement, later on incorporated in the FIR, the deceased has alleged that she was beaten by her husband on the day of incident and then was locked in her room situated in the upper portion of the house. Later on at about 7/8 p.m. her husband alongwith his mother, the applicant No.5, came in the room and beat her. Thereafter her mother in law set her on fire, she screamed upon which the remaining applicants, who were available on the ground floor of the house, came up over there, but instead of taking her to the hospital, left her burning and dying. And only after her promise not to disclose the incident to anyone, she was taken to some private hospital by them. The statement of the deceased, prima facie, connects applicant No.5 namely Kaneez Fatima and her husband with the commission of offence. She has specifically nominated applicant No.5 that she put her on fire while her husband was holding her, and as the record states, as a result of which she subsequently died. Recording of her statement is supported by the statement of MLO concerned. However, the case against the remaining applicants is that they were available in lower portion of the house and on her screams came up to her room but instead of taking her to the hospital, left her burning and dying. And only after her promise not to disclose the incident, she was taken by them to the hospital. It is clear that when the husband and mother in law of the deceased allegedly put the deceased on  fire, applicants No.1 to 4 were not present. Under these circumstances the question whether they were sharing common intention/object with the main accused to commit murder of the deceased  requires further inquiry in terms of section 497(ii) Cr. P.C.

7.       In view of above facts and circumstances, the bail application of applicant No.5 is dismissed. However, applicants No.1 to 4 are granted bail subject to furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Five hundred thousands) each and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

          The Bail Application stands disposed of.

The above findings are tentative in nature, which shall not prejudice the case of any party in the trial.

   JUDGE

A.K.