' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through the instant petition, Shakran Bibi/petitioner has sought for her post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,I429, dated 24-9-2011, offence under sections 302, 380, 201, 147, 148, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kahna, Lahore.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. Is that on 24-9-2011 at the time of Maghrab prayers, Muhammad Akram son of Hadayat Ali, complainant received a telephonic call from his son-in-law (damad) that due to short circuit, Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, daughter of the complainant was burnt resulting into her death. When the complainant reached there he saw that near the cot where dead body of Mst. Rukhsana Bibi was lying burnt, kerosene oil was also lying. The complainant had raised suspicion that. The petitioner along with her co-accused, while throwing kerosene oil had burnt his daughter.
3. Learned counsel while arguing the case on her behalf submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion. It is next argued that Mst.
Rukhsana/deceased due to family dispute committed suicide, however, the complainant throwing a wider net named five accused persons in the crime report thereby involving the whole family.
Learned counsel further submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has arrived at the conclusion that Mst. Rukhsana Bibi had committed suicide. It is also argued that the petitioner has not been ascribed any specific role and only allegation of generalized nature has been attributed to all the accused. In absence of any direct role, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, case against her falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, and investigation being complete, the petitioner, who is a woman, is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
4.. As against above, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vehemently opposes the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner with the submission that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., however, there is reasonable evidence/ material against her to establish that petitioner is connected with the commission of offence. It is also .Argued that case against the petitioner involves capital punishment, which is also covered under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C; therefore, she is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. Nevertheless the petitioner is-named in the crime report, however, perusal of the same reveals that no specific role has been ascribed to any of the accused and allegations against the petitioner and her co-accused are of generalized nature. Fact also remains that while lodging the crime report the complainant threw a. Wider net and during the course of investigation Jahangir alias Sufi< and Surayya Bibi were found innocent. As per defence version Mst. Shakran Bibi due to family dispute by way of sprinkling kerosene oil committed -suicide, which fact has been proved during the course of investigation.
7. As far as contention of learned Deputy Prosecutor-General that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of relief prayed for because case against him falls within prohibitory clause is- concerned, suffice it to say that august Supreme Court of Pakistan in .The reported case Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585) has held that when otherwise case against the accused is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is entitled to the concession of bail as a matter of right. The petitioner, who is admittedly a woman, is behind the bars since the date of her arrest and her person is no more required by the police for further investigation.
8. For the foregoing reasons and while humbly placing reliance on the dictum of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to above, I am persuaded to accept this petition, Resultantly, Shakaran Bibi/petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.