' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition Mst. Zarina petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,440 of 2010 dated 29-10-2010 registered at Police Station Saray Sindhu District Khanewal for offence under sections 302, 324, 109, 34, P.P.C.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have elaborately been narrated in the memo of petition as well as in impugned order dated 22-3-2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal whereby post-arrest bail of the petitioner was dismissed.
2(sic.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant by widening the net. Learned counsel also submits that the role attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. By the complainant is only of abetment. Learned counsel further submits that Muhammad Nawaz co-accused of the petitioner having the same role has already been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala vide order dated 9-4-2011, so on the basis same rule of Consistency, the present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. There is no evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The petitioner is a women and is behind the bars since 7-3-2011 without any progress in the trial. He further submits that the petitioner is not a previously convict. He also submitted that petitioner is not a desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He lastly submitted that petitioner is a woman and is entitled for the concession of bail.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. However, he conceded that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 16 months and she has earned the right of post-arrest bail on statutory grounds.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. Admittedly, only the role attributed to the petitioner is of abetment which can be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence. Furthermore, Muhammad Nawaz co-accused of the petitioner, having the same role, has already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala. The petitioner is a woman and is behind the bars for the last more than 16 months and the trial of the petitioner has not concluded as yet.
6. In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the ground of statutory delay for grant of bail to the present applicant, it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant amendment in section 497 of Criminal Procedure Code through Act VIII of 2011 which reads as under:-- "Provided further that the Court shall, except where it is of the opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the accused or any other person acting on his behalf, direct that any person shall be released on bail
(a) Who, being accused of any offence not punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding one year or in case of a woman exceeding six months and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; or
(b) Who, being accused of an offence punishable with death, has been detained for such offence for a continuous period exceeding two years and in case of a woman exceeding one year and whose trial for such offence has not concluded; ' Provided further that the provisions of the foregoing proviso shall not apply to a previously convicted offender for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or to a person who, in the opinion of the Court, is a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
7. It has been observed by this court that delay in trial is not attributed to the present petitioner. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a woman,.
She is neither previously convicted, nor is hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal or is accused of an act of terrorism. In this view of the matter the case of the petitioner prima facie appears to be covered under the new amendment in section 497, Cr.P.C. Through Act VIII of 2011.
8. For what has been discussed above, petitioner is entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail.
Accordingly, she is admitted to post arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
However, it is clarified that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail or caused delay in the proceedings of the case deliberately, the prosecution can move application for cancellation of bail before the learned trial Court, which shall be heard and decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
9. The observation made by this court hereinbefore are tentative in nature and shall not affect the case at the trial. Learned trial Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law and the material available before it.