Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, dated 11-03-2008, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts leading to the background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 302, 201, 34, A.P.0 was registered at Police Station, Charhoi on the complaint of Mst. Farzand Begum. It was reported that on 13-09-2007 at about 9.00, p.m. the complainant's son Abdul Malick aged 37 years left home in Car No, 5850-RIY and did not turn up. On 15-09-2007 she reported the matter and also gave his Telephone Numbers to the Police.
3. During investigation it was found that Abdul Malick use to call the accused-petitioner, upon this she was brought under investigation and alongwith her husband was found guilty of the offence of murder of Abdul Malick. After her arrest, she applied for bail before the trial Court but the same was refused through the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that prosecution story was highly doubtful. A Skelton without any identification mark was recovered by the Police, thus the question that Abdul Malick was murdered and it was his Skelton was in doubt.
Material against the present petitioner was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Telephone Sim No, 0335- 6615639 which according to the police version was in use of the accused-petitioner was actually issued in the name of Arif Kataria R/O Dohngi and claim that it was bought by the co- accused for his wife was not proved. Confessional statement of Basharat Hussain accused was also indicative of the fact that the petitioner was not aware of the actual offence. She being a woman was entitled to the concession of bail and even otherwise case against her was covered under Provisos of sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., thus the impugned order being incorrect and against law and principles governing bail matter is not maintainable, therefore, by accepting the revision petition the same may be set aside and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the petitioner and the deceased were having illicit relations. They use to contact each other on telephone. The petitioner's husband came to know and started accusing her, to prove innocence she agreed to invite the deceased at home where he was given tranquilizer by her and was murdered. The allegation was supported by recovery of Telephone Sim from the accused-petitioner and confessional statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The accused petitioner was alleged for hatching conspiracy and facilitating the offence. Strong circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case existed on record and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail. The impugned order being correct and in accordance with law and principles governing bail matter needs no interference, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The prosecution case was that the deceased use to call and persuade the accused-petitioner for illicit relations, the husband came to know about it and started accusing her, upon which she denied the allegation and in order to win the trust of her husband agreed to invite the deceased at home. They hatched a conspiracy and on 13-09-2007. when Abdul Malik came to their residence to meet her, she gave him tranquilizer. Thereafter he was murdered by Basharat Hussain accused, thus it implies that the allegations against the accused-petitioner was of hatching conspiracy, inviting the deceased at home and giving him tranquilizer. Evidence in support of the allegation was recovery of Telephone Sim No, 0335-6615639 and confessional statements of both the accused persons recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C.
8. It is important to note that as per police investigation Telephone Sim No, 0335-6615639 was issued in the name of Arif Kataria R/O Dohngi and it was purchased by Basharat Hussain for his wife through Ch. Muhammad Siddique, but surprisingly neither the owner of the Sim nor the middle man was cited as witness at the time of submission of challan, thus the question that Basharat Hussain purchased it for his wife from the real owner through Muhammad Siddique and it was in use of the accused-petitioner requires serious consideration. Similarly the confessional statements do not indicate that she had some serious grievance against the deceased and was interested in killing him or it was in her knowledge that Basharat Hussain had any intention to commit the offence of murder, thus in my view the material was not sufficient establishing a prima facie case against the accused-petitioner and the matter requires further probe.
9. In view of the aforesaid the revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail. She shall be released from custody on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Kotli.