' IJAZ AHMAD CHAIJDHRY, J.---Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. , Mst. Shazia (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,465-2005, dated 3-10-2005, registered under sections 302, 109/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Alipur Chatha, District Gujranwala on the statement of Muhammad Aslam, the complainant.
2. The brief facts as alleged in the F.I.R. Are that Muhammad Akram deceased used to visit the house of petitioner; whereas Zafar Iqbal and Arif Iqbal co-accused also used to visit the same.
Muhammad Akram (deceased), brother of the complainant asked the petitioner to restrain Zafar and Arif (co-accused) from visiting her house, but she did not do so. On 3-10-2005 at about 9-45 p.m. The petitioner came to the house of complainant and asked Muhammad Akram to accompany her as the guests had come from Lahore and they wanted to meet him in her house.
Muhammad Akram went along with petitioner to her house. At about 10-00 p.m. The complainant, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad .Nazir P.Ws. Were proceeding to their house from the main Bazaar, when they came to across the house of petitioner, they saw that the petitioner holding Muhammad Akram in "Jappha" whereas Arif Iqbal and Zafar Iqbal while armed with iron rods were abusing the deceased and stated that he should be taught a lesson for restraining them to visit the house of present petitioner. Then they inflicted successive blows hitting on different parts of Muhammad Akram deceased, who died at the spot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the story of the F.I.R. Has been falsified and during the investigation Arif Iqbal co-accused has been declared innocent, while Zafar was declared proclaimed offender and placed in Column No,2; that three accused namely Amjad Iqbal, husband of the petitioner, Muhammad Iqbal and Khushnood were introduced; that medical evidence does not support the ocular account and death was not caused due to injuries attributed to co-accused; that .The case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. She is woman having three minor children and her case does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. She is behind the bars since 5-10-2005 and her person is no more required by the police for further investigation, which is complete. Hence, her bail petition may be accepted.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.And shehad facilitated her co-accused for the murder of the deceased and also she had brought the deceased at the place of occurrence by calling him from his house with the intention to commit the offence. She also had got the deceased in "japhha" and her co-accused gave iron rods' blows, which caused death of the deceased; that the offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
Has been submitted in the Court and there is likelihOod of conclusion of the trial in the near future and she is not entitled to the bail at this stage.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The occurrence had taken place at 10-00 p.m. In the house of the petitioner. It is also admitted in the F.I.R. That deceased used to visit the house of petitioner. It is strange that the petitioner is a lady and according to the prosecution case itself the deceased and other persons used to visit the house of the petitioner. The deceased had an objection over the visits of the other persons in the house of the petitioner. The deceased was also not "Masoom-i-Dam", he was found in the house of the petitioner at the odd hours of night and he was murdered there. The presence of the witnesses and the deceased at the spot in the house of the petitioner, prima facie casts serious doubt in the prosecution story. Even otherwise, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that she took the deceased in "japhha", while her co-accused while armed with iron rods were causing injuries to the deceased hitting on his head, appears to be an unbelievable story. For the time being, it is found that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner to prima facie connect her with the commission of crime and her case is covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Mere submission of challan in the Court of competent jurisdiction is not a bar for grant of bail to an accused. The Court is empowered to grant bail to the accused at any stage of investigation or trial and no embargo has been imposed by the legislature on the Courts for the grant of bail to an accused after initiating the trial and the bail cannot be withheld as a punishment as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Manzoor Ahmad and 4 others v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 81).
For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.