' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Having been declined bail from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, D.I. Khan, the accused/petitioner Rozi Khan has filed the instant petition for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,303 dated 19-10-2012 registered under section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station Kulachi, District D.I. Khan.
2. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 19-10-2012 at 0130 hours, the accused/petitioner committed the murder of his wife Mst. Rehana Bibi and Ikram son of Gul Zaman.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and falsely charged.
He contended that the F.I.R. Has been registered at the instance of the petitioner but he has denied the lodging of F.I.R. He contended that the petitioner has not confessed the guilt despite the fact that he remained in police custody for some days and was administered torture. He contended that recovery of pellets from the dead body of the deceased belies the story of F.I.R. Which shows that the deceased were fired at with Kalashnikov. He contended that under Article 38 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, confession before the police is attached with no sanctity. He contended that the case of the petitioner at the most falls under section 302(c), P.P.C. Which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He contended that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in the near future and, therefore, seeks release of the petitioner on bail on the referred grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the legal heirs of deceased Mst. Rehana Bibi (wife of the accused/ petitioner), produced an affidavit and contended that the legal heirs of Mst. Rehana Bibi deceased have forgiven the accused/petitioner as a result of a compromise arrived at between the parties and have no objection on release of the accused/petitioner on bail.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by counsel for legal heirs of deceased Ikram contended that the accused/petitioner himself is the complainant who has admitted the murder of both the deceased and as per the version of F.I.R., he had preplanned the murder of both the deceased. He contended that the compromise submitted by the legal heirs of deceased Mst.
Rehana Bibi, allegedly effected outside the Court, cannot be considered at this stage, as no-one has the right to take law in his own hands and start executing culprits instead of taking them to the Courts of law.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7. Perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that the accused/petitioner had made the report before the local police that Mst. Rehana Bibi was his wife and out of the wedlock, one son and one daughter were born to them. He had doubt about illicit relations of Ikram deceased with his wife Mst. Rehana Bibi, deceased, as prior to the instant occurrence, he had also entered his house but succeeded to escape. As per the contents of the F.I.R., he was looking for the deceased. On the night of occurrence, when he found his wife not present on charpoy, he came out of his house along with Kalashnikov and started waiting. In the meanwhile, both the deceased came who were identified by voices. He fired at Ikram who fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot and his wife escaped but was hit by him who also died on the spot. This shows that he had preplanned the killing of the deceased. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence falls under section 302(c), P.P.C. Has no force, as no-one can be permitted to take law in his own hand and start executing the culprits instead of handing over them to the Courts of law. Even otherwise, killing of a woman on the ground of siah kari' is unlslamic and unconstitutional and offence against the State and society. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of Khadim Hussain and another v. The State PLD 2012 Balochistan 179) wherein it was held that:-- "I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the respective parties and perused the record. I have noticed in a number of cases that the killing of innocent wife, sister and other female relatives, on the allegation of `siyahkari' has become a routine practice, rather a fashion, and it is a high timer to discourage such kind of unwarranted and shocking practice, resulting in double murder in the name of so-called honour killing. I am not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution's own showing, the occurrence is the result of 'siyahkari', as such the applicants were liable to be enlarged on bail. It is true that people do not swallow such kind insult, touching the honour of their womenfolk and usually commit murder of alleged siyahkar' in order to vindicate and rehabilitate the family honour, but it is equally true that no one can be granted licence to take law of the land in his own hands and start executing the culprits himself instead of taking them to the Courts of law. The murder based on 'Ghairat' does not furnish a valid ground for bail. Killing of innocent people, especially women on the pretext of `siyahkari' is absolutely unlslamic, illegal and unconstitutional.
It is worth-mentioning that the believers of Islam are not even allowed to divorce them, without establishing their accusation. We profess our love for Islam, but ignore clear Qur'anic injunctions regarding the rights of women.. The Holy Qur'an in Sura XXIV in Sura (NUUR) Verses 4 says:- "And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses, (To support their allegation)....Flag them with eight stripes; and reject their evidence even after; for, such men are wicked transgressors."
' In the case of Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 96), it was held that:-- "Legally and morally speaking, no body has any right nor can any body be allowed to take law in his own hands to take the life of anybody in the name of Ghairat'. Neither the law of the land nor religion permits so-called honour killing which amounts to murder (Qatl-e-amd) simpliciter. Such iniquitous and vile act is violative of fundamental right as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which provides that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect is void under Article 8(1) of the Constitution.".
The accused/petitioner himself surrendered to the local police after commission of the offence.
The cause of death of deceased by firing with Kalashnikov or .12 bore shotgun is a fact to be seen at the trial with C special reference to the place and distances shown in the site plan, as at this juncture, no deep appreciation can be made.
8. The tentative assessm ent of the available record suggests that no case is made out for the grant of concession of bail to the accused/petitioner and thus the instant petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.