' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESH1, J-.---Through the present bail petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail, after refusal of bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad.
2. Facts in F.I.R. No,342 dated 11-12-2010 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Bahara Kahu, Islamabad lodged by Zubair Iqbal narrated the incident allegedly occurred without date and time of incident.
3. As per the story narrated in F.I.R. By the complainant that he is a student of BBS in Barani University-, Rawalpindi. His maternal uncle Qaisar Iqbal, who is the Field Manager in Daman Engineering Company, with whom, he tried to contact on mobile phone. On failure of contact, he contacted his other uncle Attaullah Khan, who informed thim about the residence of Qaisar Iqbal at St. No,1, Plot No,3, Bani Gala, Islamabad and asked him to check. The complainant with Asad Ali Shah and Muhammad Ajmal Khattak, reached at the pointed place at 9-30 a.m., found the gate and living rooms locked. By breaking the locks, they entered and found dead body of Qaisar lqbal, whose both hands and left foot were tied with electric wire and muffler, also having ligature marks of electric wire on neck. On checking articles, his mobile phone, laptop and cash in the wallet, were missing. He informed 15 madadgar through phone and then lodged F.I.R.
4. After usual investigation, the present accused along with co-accused were sent up to face the trial.
5. It is argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that only an allegation of abetment is levelled against the petitioner for which, he relied upon 2009 PCr.LJ 109 (Mst.. Arifa v. The State). It is also argued that the petitioner has been tried to be involved in this case by showing recovery of laptop from the house of the petitioner, when she was in jail. He argued that laptop said to have been recovered on the disclosure of co-accused Amraiz alias Dogar. He argued that if there would have been something available as shown, it could have been recovered at the time of arrest of the petitioner, failing thereof, it leads towards an aspect that such foistation is made to strengthen the false allegation of abetment. He also argued that Chowkidar, who concocted the false story of altercation between the deceased, Aftab Hussain Dogar and the present petitioner on 9-12-2010, which is in fact the motive of commission of said offence, same was also further tried to be strengthened by P.W. Saifullah, cousin of deceased, disclosing the extrajudicial confession of the present petitioner, which he disclosed in a meeting with him regarding conduct of the deceased and the same will not be good for him. He argued that such piece of evidence is inadmissible, as such, not to be relied upon. He argued that petitioner is languishing in jail since 18-12-2010 i.e, the date of her arrest with milk suckling baby and her case has not been proceeded. Therefore, he submits request for grant of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that petitioner was arrested on 18-12-2010, when her earlier bail petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, in view of case-law reported in PLD 1986 SC 173, 1996 PCr.LJ 370 and 1997 M LD 2522, successive bail cannot be preferred, when earlier has been dismissed.
' He also argued that tentative assessment at bail stage is permissible, not the deeper appreciation and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lead towards deeper appreciation, as such the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
' He also argued that star accused is the real brother of present petitioner, accused Altaf and Amraiz alias Dogar are friends of the star accused. Recovery of laptop, since made, even at the pointation of accused Amraiz alias Dogar, but yet from the house of petitioner, though -she was in jail at the relevant time, but same is immaterial, as recovery of laptop leads positively towards involvement of the petitioner. Chowkidar has disclosed the motive on the basis whereof investigation moved further resulting in detection of offence. He also argued that charge has been framed on 18-7-2011 as such, trial has commenced, hence carceration not to be attributed to the prosecution, as both sides are equally responsible. He relied upon PLD 2003 SC 525, which discusses the commencement of trial in the court, disentitles the accused.
7. Learned Standing Counsel adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.
8. Arguments heard at length and record perused with the active assistance of respective, counsel.
9. From the record, it appears that neither the date nor the time of incident has been mentioned in F.I.R., which infers a view that before reaching of complainant at the house of his maternal uncle i.e, the deceased, he was totally ignorant about his death. But it is very strange that Chowkidar, who afterwards disclosed another aspect thereby involving the petitioner, has left the house without providing any information either to the complainant party or to the police about the incident.
10. Recovery of laptop, as alleged at the time of incident, was in fact made, when the petitioner was behind the bars and it is yet a question shrouded in mystery that why such recovery could not be effected, when the petitioner herself was arrested by the police. Even such a linkage has not been established by the prosecution, as to who kept such laptop at her house.
11. So far the concern of statement of Saifullah, which too, has been recorded belatedly for which, no slight indication has been given by the prosecution about such delay and he being cousin of deceased, kept silent for a lengthy period. Moreover, through statement, he tried to establish the motive by which, the present petitioner is involved to the extent of abetment, but yet his statement has not been supported by any independent corroboration nor this evidence could be proved as a valid piece of evidence in view of Article 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat.
12. So far the concern of successive bail, I am of the humble view that cited case-law verdicts about earlier decisions and connected bail to be decided by the same court or the earlier, if supposed decided on merits, cannot be re-agitated again, unless a new ground occurs, but the instant bail petition, earlier due to dismissal for non-prosecution, stands on the same grounds.
13. Moreover, the authority referred about commencement of trial, cannot be equated with the present case in which, the lady petitioner with milk suckling baby, is languishing in jail with the allegation of abetment, E which too, is under clouds of doubt.
14. So far the authority concerned respecting bail declined to the abettor, when his driver committed offence of murder, but in the instant case, principal accused is the brother of lady petitioner for whom, there is no evidence available on record throughout the prosecution case that when such conspiracy was hatched and chalked out, as such, same is immaterial to establish the allegation of abetment Extra judicial confession as disclosed by Saifullah, which too, was belatedly recorded, comes within clouds of doubt. As such, I am of the view that evidence collected against the lady petitioner is not of much weight, hence scope of further inquiry into her guilt exists in field.
15. Therefore, keeping in view the case of the petitioner, which comes within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., being a case of further inquiry, the present petitioner deserves for grant of bail. The instant bail petition is allowed and the present petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing local surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with PR bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.