' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No, 370, dated 2-7-2006 for offences under sections 302, 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sukheke District Hafizabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shafaqat Ali accused fired atNusrat Bibi which hit her on the heart as a result of which she died at the spot. It is alleged that the occurrence was committed with the connivance and as a result of abetment of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were falsely involved in the case on account of mala fide of the complainant; that there was no motive assigned to the petitioners for the abetment of the offence alleged against them; that there was no eyewitness of the alleged against them; that there was no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and that there was a delay of 7 days in lodging of the F.I.R., hence there was ample time for the complainant to deliberate. Lastly contended that the petitioners were ladies whose case was covered under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
3A. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that Riasat Ali and Noor Bhaki appeared before the Investigating Officer on 2-7-2006 and got their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein they stated that on account of the abetment of the petitioners the offence was committed by Shafaqat Ali the main accused and that the petitioners had been found guilty by the police during investigation, hence the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioners were fully involved in the case on account of the statements made by the P.Ws. Under section 161, Cr.P.C.
However, could not deny the fact that apart from these statements made by the afore-mentioned P.Ws. After a lapse of 7 days no other evidence was available on the record against the petitioners.
Further did not deny the fact that no recovery had to be effected from the petitioners and that the investigation being complete, they were not required by the police for further investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is a delay of 7 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained and false involvement of the petitioners on account thereof cannot be ruled out. In fact the complainant, had ample time for consultation and premeditation before lodging in F.I.R. Which creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case. The only charge levelled against the petitioner is that of abetment. However, in the F.I.R. It is not mentioned as to where and in whose presence the abetment was made by the petitioners. Statements of the P.Ws. Referred to by the learned counsel for the complainant were made before the police after 7 days of the occurrence, hence the same do not carry much weight.
' Further no motive has been assigned to the petitioners who are females and heir case is covered under proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. No recovery has to be effected from the petitioners and since the investigation is complete, as such sending them behind the bars A would not serve any purpose. Even otherwise, the portion of the F.I.R. Relating to the "Karwai Police" reveals that the father of the deceased had reported the matter to the police as one of suicide on the day of occurrence.
7. For what has been discussed above prima facie there is not enough evidence available on the record against the petitioner to connect them with the commission of offence of murder of Mst.
Nusrat Bibi. Resultantly this petition is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest to the petitioners vide orders, dated 1-8-2006 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.