' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Lalan Bibi has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,130 registered at P.S. Madrassa on 4-9-2005 for offences under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts per F.I.R. Are that on 8-8-1999, Muhammad Amin son of Sajwara was murdered. Muhammad Azam son of Muhammad Amin got a case registered at P.S. Madrassa against Allah Ditta father of the complainant, complainant, Muhammad Asghar brother of the complainant, Safdar and others. Complainant and Muhammad Safdar were convicted by the learned trial Court in the above noted case and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two years prior to the occurrence, their appeal was allowed and they were acquitted. Muhammad Azam and others felt aggrieved after the acquittal of complainant and Safdar. On the fateful day at 10-00 a.m., complainant along with his father Allah Ditta and brothers Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Ahmad was present in his fields and was irrigating the land when Muhammad Azam armed with .12 bore repeater, Hasil armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad. Aslam armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Akram armed with .12 bore gun, Riaz Ahmad armed with pistol, Muhammad Zakir armed with .12 bore gun, Liaquat Ali armed with pistol, Muhammad Zahid armed with .12 bore repeater and Mst. Lalan reached there. Muhammad Azam raised lalkara that he should teach a lesson for committing the murder of his father Muhammad Amin. Mst. Lalan also raised lalkara.
Meanwhile, Muhammad Anwar brother of the complainant, Fiaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad also reached the spot and tried to stop Muhammad Azam from commission of offence; however, within the view of the P.Ws., Muhammad Azam fired at Allah Ditta father of the complainant. The fire hit on the chest and arm-pit. Riaz Ahmad fired with pistol which hit on the right hand of Allah Ditta. Hasil fired with .12 bore gun which hit on the head and chin of Allah Ditta. Liaqat Ali fired with his pistol which hit on the head and jaw of Muhammad Ahmad.
Muhammad Akram fired with gun which hit on the finger of the right hand of Muhammad Ahmad.
The injured fell on the ground. Allah Ditta and Muhammad Ahmad died at the spot. Complainant along with Muhammad Asghar in order to save their lives ran to Basti Ali Sher. The accused chased them and reached there. Complainant and his brother in order to save their lives entered Government Boys Primary School. They also raised lalkara which attracted Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Yar to the spot. Muhammad Aslam accused caused fire with .12 bore gun which hit on the back of Muhammad Asghar. Muhammad Zahid accused also fired with his gun which hit on the chest and right shoulder of Muhammad Asghar. The fire caused by Zakir accused hit on the head of Muhammad Asghar. Muhammad Asghar lost his life. However, the complainant succeeded in saving his life and reported the matter to the police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is woman who has been roped in this case, as she was mother of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, co-accused, who actively participated in the occurrence. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed this application and has argued that the petitioner remained present throughout the occurrence; that her name was duly mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R. That the occurrence took place on 4-9-2005, while the petitioner filed application seeking pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court on 26-9-2005 and, thus, remained absconder for 22 days; that after dismissal of her application, she did not surrender; that three innocent persons had lost their lives in the occurrence; and that the factum of her being woman would entitle her, in the circumstances of the case, to the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while following the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, has added that commanding Lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. Undeniably, petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence. Her relationship with Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, accused, who effectively participated in the occurrence can also be not denied. In the background of hostility and enmity the possibility cannot be ruled out that she was named in the F .1. R. As she was mother of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Akram, accused. Nothing is to be recovered from her. By no stretch of imagination, she can be dubbed as absconder, as no proceedings under section 87 or 88 of the Cr.P.C. Were ever initiated against her. Similarly, the arguments of the learned counsel for the prosecution that she did not surrender to the police after rejection of her bail application has no force, as she has surrendered before a higher Court. Her case is also covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The provisions of proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Were considered to be relevant for the purposes of pre-arrest bail in the case of Mst. Gugoo v. The State PLD 1985 Peshawar 114.
6. In view of what has been stated above, ad interim pre-arrest earlier granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 5-10-2005 is hereby confirmed, subject to her furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of rupees five thousands with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within two weeks. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.