Through this petition the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 256 dated 23.10.2003 registered under Section 302 PPC at Police Station Margalla, Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.9.2003 at about 8.30 a.m., she poured acid contained in a jar at the body of Jamshed Iqbal; deceased and fled away while boarding in a taxi car. The motive behind the occurrence is deceased's divorce to petitioner, which caused annoyance to her.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR was lodged with a delay of 28 days without any plausible explanation; the deceased remained alive till 16.10.2003, but did not name any person as his assailant. Out of the three eye-witnesses, two were his domestic servants while the third one was his business, partner; all the eye-witnesses were looking after the injured at the hospital till his death; the injured remained conscious through out and had been in the company of his parents, but did not disclose the incident or motive behind the incident; and, that the deceased married the petitioner without the consent of his parents, who, now in order to deprive her from the estate of the deceased has falsely secured the registration of the case.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. He urges that the incident was eye witnessed by three independent eye-witnesses, who have .no motive against the petitioner; the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained by the complaint and the occurrence was motivated on account of pronouncement of divorce to the petitioner.
5.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
6. FIR has been lodged with a considerable delay of 28' days. Only explanation furnished by the complainant, who is father of the deceased, is that on account of the death of the deceased, he was under a severe depression and had taken the deadbody on 16.10.2003 to his native village for burial, hence lodged the report with delay. The explanation offered by the complainant is not plausible. The complainant according to the Investigating Officer reached the P.O.F. Hospital Wah Cantonment on the very first day of the incident. He remained in P.O.F. Hospital for a day, whereafter the injured was shifted to Army Burn Centre Kharian: The eye-Witnesses, who have also been visiting the injured in P.O.F., Wah as well as in Army Burn Hospital, Kharian could have lodged the report about the incident. It is mentioned in the FIR that Said Rasool, one of the eye-witness, has telephonically informed Rescue Police at Emergency No, 15 about the incident and removal of the injured to P.I.M.S Hospital. The Investigating Officer, however negated this statement and stated that in fact some neighbourer has informed the duty officer at Rescue 15 about the injuries sustained by a woman and her removal to the hospital at P.I.M.S. but, found no trace of any incident. Non-disclosure of the incident and motive behind the incident by the deceased and the complete silence observed by the eyewitnesses till lodging of F.I.R. on 23.10.2003 cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution version. Benefit of such doubt can be extended even at bail stage. Ultimate acquittal have no recompense to an innocent for the incarceration in jail, during trial.
7. The petitioner was married to the deceased. Allegedly a dispute occurred, between the spouses, which ended in divorce. The Investigating Officer when questioned to this effect, after consulting the record, replied non-existence of evidence about pronouncement of divorce. The motive for the offence is, therefore, not free from doubt.
8. The investigation appears to be faulty. Duty Officer of the Rescue Police Islamabad on information visited P.I.M.S. Hospital but failed to find out the presence of injured who was brought in the emergency: The police post is established in every emergency, to record the first information of the incident of a cognizable case. The investigating officer failed to locate the taxi car in which the petitioner fled away after commission of the alleged offence.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to deprive the petitioner of a share in the deceased's estate, the instant case ha's been falsely got registered against her, after a considerable delay, has some force. The case of the petitioner is open to further inquiry.
10.The petitioner is a woman of 42 years of age. She has two sons and a daughter from her previous husband. She was taken into the custody by the police on dismissal of her pre-arrest bail on 17.11.2003, and is behind the bars since them.
11. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.