' LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks bail in F.I.R. No,254 dated 25-2-2010 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Paharipura, Peshawar.
2. On 25-2-2010 Hakim Gul A.S.-I. Came to know that in the limits of Naway Kalay a dead, body was lying in a sack and that the death was caused by hanging/strangulation. Nobody identified the dead body. When the dead body was being brought in official vehicle to the Police Station then near Dalazak Road, one Samiullah son of Sadullah resident of Jalal Mardan identified the dead body to be of Muhammad Riaz son of Firdous resident of Sher Garhi who was his sister's son and that the deceased had gone on 21-2-2010 to the house of his friend Jamal Shah to Kamal Town and while coming back from there he disappeared. They were searching for him. The said Samiullah charged unknown persons. F.I.R. Was registered on the basis of Murasila.
3. During the course of investigation, three accused Bahadur Shah, Mukamil Shah and the present petitioner were arrested on 4-3-.2010. On 4-3-2010 statement of one Asad Zia son of Saifullah Khan under section 164, Cr.P.C. Was recorded stated that he deals in the business of vehicles and on 27- 2-2010 Bahadur Shah son of Zahir Shah resident of Takht Bhai brought Motorcar No,LWB 3613 XLI of white colour and he purchased the same for Rs,2,35,000 from him and that the same was taken by the police from him after 2/3 days, of its purchase.
4. Likewise one. Muzammil Shah son of Zahir Shah was also examined under section 164; Cr.P.C. On 4-3-2010 who stated that he was driver by profession and on the day of occurrence he was in his house when a motorcar of white colour being driven by Riaz. Mst. Ayesha, engaged to his brother Bahadur Khan, came there with Riaz. Both got down from the motorcar and went to his house.
Brothers of the deponent namely, Bahader Shah and Mukammil Shah, were also present at his house and that the moment they entered the house Mukammil Shah alias Kami, I gave a blow with some weapon of Riaz Khan on his head and as a result he became unconscious. Accused Bahader Shah brother of the deponent and Mukammil Shah brother-in-law of the deponent pulled him to a room whereas Mst. Ayesha went out of the house. The said two accused tied the hands and legs of Riaz Khan with a rope, took cash amount along with mobile set from him and thereafter put a rope in his neck and killed him. His dead body was lying for three days in the room situated in the second floor of their house. Thereafter the accused put the dead body of Riaz in a sack and threw the same in the nearby fields. Mukammil Shah, as per, statement of the deponent, was given an amount of Rs,15000 by Bahadur Shah whereas the remaining amount along with motorcar belonging to the deceased was kept by his brother Bahadur Shah and Mst. Ayesha.
5. On 4-3-2010 the statement of Muhammad Ijaz son of Firdaus Khan was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. According to him his brother Riaz Khan (deceased) while going out of his house on 21-2- 2010 had told him that he was going to Peshawar in order to attend the marriage of one of his friends; that his brother took an amount of Rs,1,100,000 in cash, three ATM cards and cheque books of different banks with him. When he did not return, they enquired about him and came to know that on 22-2-2010 Jamal Shah son of Bahader Shah had made the report in Police Station Faqir Abad about the missing of his brother. Riaz Khan, and also informed them, According to his statement he was satisfied that his brother was murdered by accused Bahader Shah, Mukammil Shah and Mst. Ayesha daughter of Pir Muhammad resident of Pirano Dag Mardan.
6. On the same date i,e, 4-3-2010 Samiullah Khan son of Saadullah Khan the complainant, was also examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. And he too charged the accused mentioned above. According to him he had come to know that the murder was committed by the above named accused.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a lady; that initially no one was charged in the F.I.R; that the statement of Muzammil Shah would also indicate that she has not been attributed any role in the commission of the offence except that she accompanied Riaz Khan in the car; that she has 5/6 years old daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on PLD 1988 SC 413 where the Honourable Apex Court had granted bail to accused who was not attributed the injury caused to the deceased but his presence was shown at the time of occurrence.
Therefore, the learned counsel contended that the petitioner at the most, can be saddled with responsibility of abetment of conspiracy which the prosecution has yet to establish during the course of trial.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner had played main role in the commission of the offence; that she had taken the deceased to the house of Muzammil Shah where he was done to death and that she is the main culprit and does not deserve the concession of bail. Ms. Abida Safdar, Advocate appearing for the State also argued on behalf of the State.
9. The statement of Muzammil Shah is of vital importance where lie had stated that as soon as Riaz deceased entered their house, accused Mukammil Shah gave a blow with some weapon to him on his head and as a result of which he became unconscious and thereafter accused Bahader Shah and Mukammil Shah pulled him to a room whereas Mst. Ayesha went out of the house. This statement would indicate that she has not been assigned any role in the commission of the actual offence.
10. Whether the petitioner had accompanied the deceased to the house of Muzammil Shah in order that he be killed and his belonging be taken away, is a question which can be thrashed out during the trial. Muzammil Shah in his statement has also stated that when the deceased was pulled to a room Mst. Ayesha went out of the house. The material collected against the petitioner, at the most, would show that she has abeted and/or conspired but to establish the same, the Investigating Agency would have to collect more evidence to justify refusal to grant bail in her case. Reliance is placed on 1988 SCMR 413(sic) at pages 414 and 415.
11. For what has been discussed above, I hold the petitioner entitled to the concession of bail, both on the ground that her case is one of further enquiry and also that she is a women, admit her to bail. She shall be released on bail provided she furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000 with three sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned.