' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.--- This is an after-arrest bail application in case F.I.R. No,64 of 2007, dated 28-2-2007, registered under sections 460, 302 and 396, P.P.C. At Police Station Sarwar Road, Lahore, wherein it is alleged that father of the complainant, namely, Mian Rashid Ahmad and his servant Ghazanfar were found murdered in the house of the father of the complainant on 28-2- 2007 at about 5-00 p.m. When the complainant visited the house of her father along with her husband and the main door of the house was open, the dead body of the father of the complainant was lying in his bedroom while the dead body of Ghazanfar, his servant was found lying in the other bedroom with his throat strangulated by a cable wire and his both legs/feet were found tied with wire. All the safes of the Almirahs were found broken. Car No,LWB-7472 Toyota Corolla Model 2006 was also taken away along with gold ornaments and cash. Through the supplementary statement, the name of the petitioner was given to, police as investigation also revealed that the murder was committed by the petitioner along with her husband Fayyaz alias Gudu, co-accused, sister Aasya apart from one Irshad, proclaimed offender, as petitioner was serving in the house of the deceased for the last about seven years and deceased was living alone in said house who was otherwise putting up in Denmark and was a very rich man. It was alleged that gold ornaments and cash consisting of over Rs,three crores were taken away from the house after murders. Post-arrest bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 12-10-2007, hence this petition to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely involved merely on the suspicion as her sister Aasia, co-accused, was serving in the house of the deceased father of the complainant and submitted that through supplementary statement the name of the petitioner and other family members has been given to police and submitted that recovery of gold ornaments and cash consisting of Denmark currency has been planted upon the petitioner. It is submitted that it was found in the investigation that the deceased and some others badly drunk before the occurrence. It is submitted that petitioner was on family way when she was arrested and then gave birth to a child in jail and the child is also living in jail with the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was arrested on 11-5-2007, since then is in jail, therefore, being a woman she is entitled to bail keeping in view 1st proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. And referred to 2008 PCr.LJ 1112, case of Najma Bibi v. The State.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that it is a double murder case and the two deceased persons were done to death through strangulation by the petitioner and co- accused just for money as the deceased was a very rich man and was putting up in Denmark along with other family members and occasionally used to come to Pakistan and stayed in the said house where murders took place. It is submitted that supplementary statement was made just on the very next day to police without loss of any further time and submitted that after the name of the petitioner and her husband Fayyaz alias Gudu, ,co-accused, were given to police, they absconded and remained fugitive from law for quite a considerable period and were arrested after about three/four months of the occurrence. Further submitted that gold ornaments, Denmark currency and Pakistan currency worth Rs,three crores have been recovered from the petitioner's possession, therefore, she is directly connected with the commission of the offence and cannot claim bail simply because she is a woman and because she gave birth to a child in jail. In support of his contention he has referred to the case of Mst. Faiz Bibi v. The State 2003 YLR 2295. He submitted that as the offence falls within prohibitory clause, petition may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments, perused the record and also the case-law on the subject.
5. Though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Yet the fact remains that not only on the basis of supplementary statement wherein she has been named for the commission of the offence along with her husband, sister, mother and one Irshad co-accused, who is a proclaimed offender while Naziran Bibi has been arrested recently as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant and facing investigation, recovery of gold ornaments plus foreign currency of Denmark and Pakistan over Rs,three crores, prima facie connects her with the commission of the offence and offence falls within prohibitory clause.
6. Coming to the case-law Najma Bibi v. The State 2008 PCr.LJ 1112 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that the same does not extend any benefit to the petitioner being distinguishable on fact and law as it was case of further inquiry on the basis of three versions of the occurrence in said case; whereas there is no such finding in the present case. Taking up the case-law referred to by learned counsel for the complainant i.e. Faiz Bibi v. The State 2003 YLR 2295 it does help the prosecution to say no to the petitioner in this bail application.
7. As observed in the preceding paragraph that there is sufficient material on the file which connects the petitioner with the commission of the offence prima facie, therefore, merely because she is a woman and has given birth to a child in jail does not entitle her as a matter of right B to claim bail in a double murder case. At the most what can be done in such a situation is that a direction can be given to the trial Court to expedite the trial. However, at the same time I am not fixing any specific period for the conclusion of the trial as Naziran Bibi, mother of the petitioner, is still with police under investigation and supplementary challan thus, would be filed in due course if she is found guilty in the investigation; whereas Irshad, proclaimed offender co-accused is also still an absconder, therefore, I would only expect from the learned trial Court that it would expedite the trial and would not let any undue delay come in the way of the trial: Petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.