' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Mst. Munazza Saleem wife of Muhammad Saleem, the petitioner, seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R.No,747 of 2005, dated 5-12-2005 registered at Police Station Garden Town, Lahore for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case as it unfolded in the F.I.R.Registered at the instance of Mian Muhammad Arif son of Muhammad Ilam Din, the complainant, was that he is a businessman; his daughter Ifra had been married to Zubair Saleem three years ago; from their wedlock a son was born who is still alive; the in-laws of his daughter had been quarrelling with her frequently; some time ago after having been fed up with the maltreatment of her in-laws, his daughter had come to her parental home; she had been residing with him for about two/three months; thereafter her father-in-law came to his house and on assurance that in future the complainant would receive no such complaints against them, he in the presence of witnesses sent his daughter to her in-laws' house; on 4-12-2005 when his son Muhammad Ali went to see his daughter she told him that her mother- in-law Mst. Munazza Bibi, her husband ZubairSaleem and his sisters Sania and Anam subjected her to severe physical harm, degraded her and extended threats of dire consequences; she requested him to take her along; when his son returned home he narrated the whole episode; on 5-12-2005 when the complainant along with Mian Maqsood Ahmad son of Haji Muhammad Shafi and Mian Manzoor Ahmad son of Mian Zahoor-ud-Din went to Garden Town, Ahmad Block to see his daughter Ifra and they had hardly entered the house when they heard shrieks from inside; they saw his daughter lying on the floor and Zubair Saleem holding her by her arms whereas Muhammad Saleem son of Haji Noor had caught hold of her legs; Mst. Munazza Bibi (petitioner) had squeezed her throat and Sania and Anam daughters of Muhammad Saleem after holding her by her hair were beating her up; on seeing this they raised noise whereupon Zubair Saleem and Muhammad Saleem, etc. Extended to them threats of dire consequences; when he along with the witnesses rescued his daughter Ifra, they found marks of scratches and torture on her face and throat and found that her lips had bled; in their presence his daughter breathed her last; his daughter had been murdered by Mst. Munazza Bibi wife of Muhammad Saleem, Sania, Anam daughters of Muhammad Saleem, Zubair Saleem son of Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Saleem son of Noor in consultation with one and other after throttling and torturing her. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's application for post-arrest bail had been turneddown by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order, dated 13-2-2006. Hence the instant petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the witnesses are not the residents of the same house; that the story as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Does not appeal to common sense; that even if the prosecution story is believed to be 'true for the sake of arguments, even then surprisingly no body intervened to rescue the victim; that the fact that the deceased had been taken to the hospital by her husband's cousin Irfan and Mst. Munazza Bibi, (petitioner) belies the prosecutions story; that statement of Dr. Zulfiqar Memon under section 161, Cr.P.C. Who had received the dead- body at the hospital confirms that she had been taken to the hospital by the petitioner and other relatives; that the suspicion about poisoning as expressed by the complainant party later on had also been found to be incorrect, as the report of the Chemical Examiner had ruled out the said possibility. He finally argued that the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry and even otherwise she being a female was entitled to the concession of bail under first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate,the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He argued that the deceased had been done to death as a result of domestic violence wherein the petitioner had made a major contribution; that in the investigation carried out so far, the petitioner has been held to be guilty and that keeping in view the callous and cruel manner in which a young girl had been done to death, does not entitle the petitioner to the grant of bail even under the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. The learned State counsel adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerablelength and have also minutely examined the police record.
8. It is on record that on 26-1-2006 the then Investigating Officernamely Masood Aziz S.P.
(Organized Crimes) had declined to investigate the case on the plea that the accused party was known to him, however, what is surprising is that he had kept investigation with him from 9-1-2006 to 26-1-2006 and also recorded several police diaries during this period. One fails to understand as to what stopped him to return the file on the first day when he had been entrusted with the same.
According to the current Investigating Officer namely Azmat Ullah Gondal S.P. (Investigation), the defence version as put forward by the petitioner does not synchronize with the actual happenings.
According to the Investigating Officer the petitioner has not been able to explain some vital points raised during the course of investigation on the basis of which she could at least put forward a viable story qua her innocence. In order to appreciate the pleas raised by Mr. Azam Nazeer Tarar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner one has to travel beyond the confines of tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record. The Hon'ble apex Court has time and again deprecated deeper appreciation of the material available on the record while deciding bail applications. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that being a female she is entitled to the grant of bail under first Proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is concerned, I would like to refer to an illuminating observation made by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. Mst. Khurshid Bibi, etc. (Cr.P.0 No, 366-L/2005) relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant. In the said case it was argued by the respondent that she was a female whose case fell within first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And bail had thus rightly and justifiably been allowed to her. Repelling this contention the Hon'ble apex Court in paragraph No,7 of its order observed as under:-- "It is true that a female fell within the proviso to section 497(1)of Cr.P.C. But it is not correct to presume that the case of such a person gets equated with the case of a person arrested for a bailable offence or that such a person gets clothed with a right to get released on bail. Grant of bail to such a person or refusal thereof still remains within the discretion of the competent Court to be exercised judiciously in accordance with the facts of each case and in terms of the principles regulating the same."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the female respondent by the High Court. Apart from this there are innumerable precedents available wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the High Courts have held that a woman is not entitled to the grant of bail as of right in every case and that discretion is to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case.
9. In view of the observations noted hereinabove I find this petition to be meritless, which is accordingly, dismissed.