' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Sumaira Ashraf petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 300/12, dated 22-8-2012 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Gujrat in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motives due to suspicion of illicit liaison.
The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And she has been involved in this case through a supplementary statement. The supplementary statement has got no value in the eyes of law. No injury to the deceased is attributed to the present petitioner and only an allegation of catching hold of the deceased at the time of occurrence is alleged against the petitioner. Even otherwise the dead body of the deceased was taken into possession from twenty kilometers away from the house of the petitioner. There is no eye-witness mentioned in the F.I.R. With regard to the alleged eyewitnesses mentioned in the supplementary statement no explanation has been brought on record as to why they kept mum for twenty-four hours. The petitioner is a woman and by virtue of her gender her case falls within the ambit of first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation of this case is complete, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner, her person is not required by the police for further investigation, she is a mother of four children, thus, her continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The learned counsel has relied upon 2011 SCM R 161, 2011 SCM R 355 and 2012 SCM R 1273.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant after going through the record submits that there is absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case which is not known to him. There are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence namely Shahid Ali and Mubashir and the statements of both of them under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have been recorded by the police wherein they fully involve the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and gave specific role of catching hold the deceased and in this way facilitated her co-accused to commit the murder of the deceased in a brutal manner. The petitioner is main accused in this case who has called the deceased at her house and thereafter murdered him. During the investigation she has been found involved by the Investigating Officer. The offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Challan in this case has been submitted, charge has been framed by the learned trial court and if the petitioner is allowed bail at this stage the case of the prosecution would be prejudice.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. It has been noticed that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And her name has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement which has been got recorded with a delay of one day and that too without any source, thus, its evidentiary value would be determined by the learned trial court. More over the alleged two eye-witnesses who were introduced through the same supplementary statement could not furnish any explanation whatsoever that why they kept silent for one day and did not inform the A complainant when they are related to the complainant. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the supplementary statement is only of catching hold the deceased and admittedly she has not caused any injury to him, nothing has been recovered from her custody. The dead body of the deceased was also not recovered on her pointation. The petitioner is a woman and by virtue of her gender she is entitled for concessionary treatment because her case falls within the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497,Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that as the charge has been framed and the case is pending for recording of prosecution evidence and enlarging the petitioner on bail would cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution has no force because law is settled on the point that even before pronouncement of judgment if the accused is entitled for bail he should be allowed bail. The petitioner is mother of four children, she is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, investigation qua the petitioner has already been B completed, challan in this case has been submitted, thus, continuous incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would not serve any beneficial purpose.
5. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into her guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.