Petitioner seeks her post arrest bail in case FIR No, 287-10 dated 10.08.2010 under Sections 302, 34, PPC Police Station City Kabirwala Diswet Khanewal
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that occurrence is dated 3.8.2010 but report was lodged on 10.08.2010 and there is no sufficient explanation for the said delay. He, further' contended that only evidence available against the petitioner are the statements of last seen witnesses but these were recorded on 28.8.2010 which clearly shows that these are fabricated pieces of evidence and there is no other evidence available against the petitioner and thus her case definitely requires further inquiry.
3. Learned counsel for complainant and DPG opposed the petition and contended that post- mortem report shows that death was caused by suffocation which connects the petitioner with the commission of crime. They also contended that pillow has also been recovered from the house of deceased on the pointation of co-accused Nisar.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Perusal of FIR shows that complainant received the information on 3.8.2010 and went to the house of deceased and found some marks around his nose and one injury on his hand. If this was so, the matter should have been immediately reported to the police but it was not done. On 10.08.2010 i,e, after about 6 days, the matter was reported to the police wherein it was alleged that according to the information collected by the petitioner, the offence was committed by Mst.
Shahnaz Bibi along with three unknown persons. However, there is absolutely no evidence as to how this information and through whom the complainant came to know about this fact. Even in the FIR it is not mentioned that from the day of occurrence to the day of lodging the FIR the petitioner was not present at home or she had taken away anything. This aspect alone is sufficient to make the case of the petitioner as that of further inquiry. The only evidence available against the petitioner is the statements of Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Qasim which were recorded by the police on 28.8.2010 i,e, after about 17 days of the registration of case. They both made the statement before the police that on 3.8.2010 at 5.00 a.m. they were going together to Lorri Adda, Kabirwala and when reached in a street saw three persons including Nisar who were emerging from the house of deceased and while boarding in a car went away while after their departure the petitioner Mst. Shahnaz Mai went back into the house. They further deposed that they had gone for business and when came back they came to know that the deceased had been murdered and so they disclosed this fact to the complainant. The point for determination is that it is strange that both of them left for business on 3.8.2010 and together came back after about 25 days of the occurrence. Even in their statements it is not mentioned that as to when they came back. It may also be mentioned here that on 28.8.2010 the statements of said witnesses were recorded by the police and on the same day the arrest of the petitioner was shown and this aspect also makes the case of petitioner as that of further inquiry.
Thus, in view of what has been said above? I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.