IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail
Application No. 595 of 2018
Mst. Wazeeran
Bibi..
.
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of hearing : 16.08.2018
Mr.
Mukhtar Ali, advocate for applicant
Mr.
Liaquat Ali Khan, advocate for complainant
Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Shah, DPG
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui,
J: The
applicant is facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Karachi
(East) in a case initiated against him by lodging FIR No. 32/2018 at PS Alfalah
under Sections 302, 34 PPC.
2.
I
have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the relevant record as
well as cited case laws from either side. From whatever heard and perused, I
have observed as under:
i)
The
allegations against the applicant are that she along with her male counterparts
have taken part in the murder of complainant's son Liaquat Ali by putting him
on fire. Allegedly, the cousin of complainant namely Muhammad Iqbal called him and
disclosed about the incident.
ii)
On
such information, at once, complainant came to Karachi and met his son in the
hospital, who disclosed that on 09-02-2018 at 9:30, he went to the house of
accused persons for demanding his outstanding money amounting to Rs.116,000/-.
The accused persons after altercation of some harsh words, got him to sit in a
room then applicant and her husband Rabnawaz and other unidentified persons,
after sprinkling patrol over him, put him on fire. On his hue and cry, they
brought him to civil hospital. The son of the complainant expired due to
injuries on 12-02-2018.
iii)
During
investigation, the police have recorded statements of people of locality and
also visited the place of the incident. The residents of the neighbourhood
denied the happening of such incident in a way as described by the complainant.
According to them, the decease caught fire by his own mistake and the accused
persons have no hand in it.
iv)
The
police also visited the place of incident during investigation but nothing material
was collected from the place of incident which indicates towards the happening
of incident as described by the complainant.
v)
Since,
it was not established that the accused persons are having some hand in the
incident; therefore, the then investigation officer formed an opinion that there
was no offence taken place. The police; therefore, placed a summary report
before the concerned judicial Magistrate in C-class but the learned Magistrate
did not concur with the police report and has taken cognizance.
vi)
It
transpires from the police investigation report that the deceased caught on
fire in his own home and ran out of his home while crying for getting some help.
As per police report, the major burning was happened not within the house of
accused persons but outside their house in the balcony.
vii)
It
is hard to believe that the applicant would do such a heinous offence in her
own house and then has tried to providing him medical aid.
viii)
The
applicant is a woman, as such her case covers under the first proviso of
Section 497 CrPC; as such under the circumstances when police have let of the
applicant during investigation and furnished a report under cancelled class, it
becomes a further probe as per provision sub-section 2 of Section 497 CrPC.
3.
In
the backdrop of the above observation, I am of the considered view that a case
of bail has been made out for the applicant, as such she was admitted to bail
subject to furnishing surety of Rs. 100,000/- up to the entire satisfaction of
the trial Court through a short order dated 16-08-2018.
4.
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
the applicant becomes absconder then the trial Court is fully authorised to
take every action against the applicant and her surety including cancellation
of bail without making a reference to this Court.
5.
The
above are the reasons for my short order pronounced on 16-082018.
J U D G E