' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J. The requisite report from the jail received.
2. Petitioner Mst. Farzana Bibi by way of the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,193 registered under sections 324/148/149/109, P.P.C. With Police Station Head Marala, District Sialkot on 31-10-2004. Later on, the police is stated to have added the offence under section 302, P.P.C. In the same.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 31-10-2004 at about 1-30 p.m. She and others, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have committed the murder of Muhammad Ayyub and injured Mst. Irshad Bibi and Mst. Bilqees.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the narration of the F.I.R. Suggests that she, perhaps, at the relevant time was empty handed. She simply has been assigned the role along with others to have hurled abuses and beaten Mst. Irshad Bibi. So, this would show that she has not A been assigned any specific injury to the said injured lady and rather, general role as mentioned above. Hence, the question of her vicarious liability in the matter is to be gone into at trial. Hence, the case against her calls for further inquiry into her guilt and so, the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. However, according to the police record, she has remained proclaimed offender. It has been explained by her side that she in fact did not know the registration of the case against her and rather had been living in District Faisalabad. She cannot be refused such relief merely for the reason of her alleged absconsion, particularly, when the above explanation has been offered" by her side and her case has been found to be one of further inquiry into her guilt.
6. The report from the jail suggests that she is having with her a suckling baby aged about one year. She so, is entitled to the relief of bail on such ground alone in view of. The case of "Mst. Zarina v. The State (1991 M LD 518 Lahore).
7. She is stated to be behind the bars since 3-3-2011 and a previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances of the case, I have been persuaded to hold that the case for her enlargement on bail has been made out.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit her 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 the learned trial court.