ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Bail Application No. 354 / 2010.

Date                                    Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on M.A. No. 1743/2010.

2. For orders on M.A. No. 1797/10

3. For hearing.

15-05-2010

Mr. Amjad Ali learned counsel for the applicant/accused.

Mr. Saleem Akthar learned Additional Prosecutor General for State.

AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, J.          Through this bail application, the applicant Mst. Noor Jehan has approached this Court, seeking bail in crime No. 04/2010 of police station Baldia Town Karachi for an offence U/Ss: 302, 324, 109 and 34 P.P.C

The bail plea of the applicant was declined by the trial Court vide order dated: 30-03-2010.

The brief facts of the prosecution as un-folded in the F.I.R lodged by the complainant Faysal are that on 12.01.2010 Mst. Noor Jehan wife of Munwar Hussain Niazi came to their house at 5-00 p.m and told his grand father Badshah Khan that he has not brought Rs.50,000/-, which amount she had to pay Mst. Zareena. She asked her grand father that she sent a person to her house at Sawat Colony, on which his grant father sent his father Abdul Ghafoor to the house of the accused Mst. Noor Jahan at Sawat Colony by a motorcycle. At about 600- p.m when his father reached near the house of Mst. Noor Jahan, the old enemies Walid Dad, Ismail @ Raja, Abbas and Javed Pathan in connivance with Mst. Noor Jahan and her husband Mian Munwar Niazi killed his father Abdul Ghafoor by causing fire arm injuries. They also caused injuries to his relative Raees Khan. Raees Khan informed the complainant about this incident on phone.

It is interalia contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; no specific role has been attributed to the applicant. The P.W Raees Khan has not stated anything against the present applicant, hence her case requires further inquiry. He lastly contended that during investigation, the Investigating Officer could not collect any material against the present applicant.

Conversely Mr. Saleem Akhtar learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State has opposed the bail application of the applicant but could not rebut the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Additional Prosecutor General for the State and perused the papers.

Upon a perusal of F.I.R, it appears that the complainant is not eye witness of the occurrence and he was informed about this un-happy episode by P.W Raees Khan on phone. In the F.I.R it is not alleged that the applicant has caused any injury either to the deceased or to P.W Raees Khan. P.W Raees Khan is eye witness of the occurrence and he also received the injuries at the hands of co-accused. During investigation, the Investigating Officer could not collect any material against the present applicant to show her nexus with the alleged occurrence. The applicant is a woman and did not cause any injury to the deceased or P.W Raees Khan and there is no material on record to show that the deceased was murdered with the connivance of present applicant and, therefore, the case of present applicant falls within the ambit of sub section 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C and requires further inquiry.

For the fore going reasons, the applicant was granted by short order dated: 20.04.2010.

                                                                                                       JUDGE

ABDUL SALAM P.A