ORDER SALMAN HAMID, J.---Bail Application No 15 of 2011. Moved by the present applicants before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot having been dismissed in terms of his order dated 1-2-2011 present application has been filed.
2. According to the contents of F.I.R. No.343 of 2010 of Police Station A-Section, Kandhkot, lodged by, Ali Gul son of Muhammad Murad (Complainant) on 18-12-2010, under sections 452, 324, 337- A(ii), 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C., wherein subsequently upon death of Mst. Janat Khatoon on 5-1-2011 section 302, P.P.C. Was also incorporated against the accused mentioned therein, including the two applicants are that prior in time about three years back, Mst. Janat Khatoon (the deceased) was declared a 'Kari' by her husband, Muhammad Murad and he had thrown her out from his house.
The deceased sought refuge in her father's house namely Ranjho, and the brothers of the deceased, who are also the co-accused in the F.I.R., became greedy and attempted to mary her of with some other person, for consideration, without realizing that the deceased was not divorced by her previous husband, Murad and that deceased's consent was not obtained to save the deceased from such inhuman act at the hands of her father and brothers, the complainant made payment of Rs.300,000 to them and brought the deceased with him. The co-accused i.e. The father and brothers of the deceased on the fateful day trespassed into the house, duly armed and tried to take her away and upon her resistance she succumbed to death at the hands of the accused, mentioned in the F.I.R. The role in the F.I.R. Assigned to the co-accused is that Dunya Bux (Applicant No.1) gave butt blows to Mst. Lal Khatoon who at such time tried to cover the body of the deceased with her body to save her life; whereas Muneer Ahmed the second applicant intimidated and harassed the complainant, the deceased and Lal Khatoon by show of arms.
3. In this background of the F.I.R., it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that no role having been assigned to them and/or the deceased did not die because of their acts and the fact that out of seven accused three have been let of and two main accused, because of whose firing the deceased died are absconding and the fact that these two applicants had not caused any injury to the deceased, they are entitled to bail. It was also argued that according to medical report, the injury which was stated to have been caused to Mst. Lal Khatoon was Shaja-e-Khafifah and fall out side the prohibitory Clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It was thus argued that the applicants are entitled to bail.
4. Learned counsel for State vehemently argued in opposition to the application and resisted the same. It was urged that all the accused, including the two applicants duly armed trespassed with the common intention of killing Mst. Janat Khatoon i.e. The deceased. It was also argued that the names of the accused have been given specifically in the F.I,R. And also mentioned in the statement, recorded by the deceased. It was also mentioned that the delay in lodging F.I.R. Was fully explained inasmuch as that the deceased having received grievous injuries succumbed to death and before lodging F.I.R. The complainant took her to Hospital. Therefore, delay in lodging F.I.R. By one day late under the circumstances was of no consequence. It was also argued that the contents of F.I.R. Would show that the present two applicants were instrumental in the death of the deceased inasmuch as when Mst. Lal Khatoon attempted to save her from the other accused the applicant No.1 caused butt blows to her; whereas applicant No.2 by show of arms intimidated her in leaving the deceased. Thus it was argued that looking at the case from such an angle, the applicants are not entitled to bail. It was also argued that this was a case of 'Karo Kari' and that the deceased was exploited after she was declared a 'Kari in which the applicants were actively involved and further that the evil of 'Karo Kari' by their conduct was promoted which should not be taken too lightly by the Courts.
5. Heard arguments.
6. While dismissing the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot took pains in bringing out the menace and evil of "Karo Kari" and narrated the entire back ground thereof. It was mentioned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dial. How a lady-once declared Kari is socially banned, condemned and maltreated. It was also mentioned in the Order that once a woman is declared a ' Kari', whether she is married or unmarried how her such labelled position is exploited by her relatives, be they are brothers, fathers, uncles, etc. Etc. In most of the cases a "Kari" woman so declared is treated as an out caste and is less and lower in rank than a domestic animal and/or cattle and is being exploited by these men to their advantage. A Kari woman is sold out many times and is used for illegal gains at the hands of such persons.
7. In the present case as well the deceased having been declared Kari by her husband namely Muhammad Murad was in the first instance sent to her father and that her father and brothers, became greedy; wanted to sell her, knowing much well that she was still under wedlock of Muhammad Murad. It seems that these men are far from the moral values and the Islamic virtues and teaching and are slaves to their barbaric customs and rites and the women are treated with hostility and in an inhuman manner. Life-stock it seems has more value and importance than a 'Kari' woman.
8. It was also mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot that at the time of hearing of the bail application, ordeal of deceased was explained by the complainant in detail which was no less than a horrifying act of some fiction.
9. Looking at all such circumstances and to discourage infamous 'Karo Kari' affair, and to make an attempt to mend the society and make it a civilized place, people like the applicants, who actively participated in the commission of offence, whereby deceased lost her valuable life and Mst.
Khatoon sustained injuries, be kept away.
10. Therefore, looking at the aspect that indeed two applicants were present at the time of commission of offence and the deceased also having named them specifically in her statement and the fact that they also made attempts to prevent Mst. Lal Khatoon to save deceased from receiving injuries and in such process Mst Lal Khatoon also got injured at the -hands of the applicants and/or because of intimidation, in my opinion the two applicants played active role in commission of heinous offence and that too in and and promotion of infamous custom of 'Karo Kari'.
11. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq v. State (1996 SCM R 956), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan declined bail despite the fact that no act was attributed to the applicants therein but the fact that they trespassed. In the case in hand not only that the applicants trespassed which was not denied by them, but by doing so they, as already mentioned promoted "Karo Kari' and Mst.
Janat lost her life. I am not inclined to enlarge the applicants on bail and the same is hereby dismissed..