' SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, J.---By this order, I propose to dispose of this bail application No,S- 897/2012, filed by the applicant/accused Shahzadi Sonia daughter of Ghulam Ali Shaikh, relates. ,to Crime No,147/2012, lodged by complainant Syed Iftikhar Ali Shah at Police Station 'A' Section, Nawabshah, registered on 3-7-2012 at 3-30 p.m. For offence under sections 302, 324, 114, 506(2) and 34, P. P . C .
2. Facts of the case as narrated in the above F.I.R. Are as under:-- "Complaint is that I have my own zamindari. Syed Ibrahim Shah son of Syed Abdul Ghani Shah aged about 55 years is my cousin, who was A.M.S. In P.M.C. Hospital, Nawabshah. Yesterday viz. 2- 7-2012 I along with my servants Abdul Karim son of Ali Murad Rind and Mir Hassan son of Kandero Khokhar had gone to cousin Dr. Syed Ibrahim Shah to meet him at his clinic in P.M. C. Hospital Nawabshah, where we were sitting, when two persons came there, out of whom one person disclosed his name as Jurial Shah who asked my cousin Dr. Ibrahim Shah that he was strict towards staff Nur'se Shahzadi Sonia Shaikh and if he again repeated such behaviour towards her then it would not be good for him and by saying so, both of them went out. Then cousin Ibrahim Shah disclosed to us that Nurse Shahzadi Sonia Sheikh has illicit terms with Jurial Shah and it was therefore that Jurial Shah had previously also issued him murderous threats. We all then boarded in Car No, ARC 344 of Syed Ibrahim Shah which was being driven by Muhammad Hafeez son of Misri Khan Khokhar and we all were sitting on the back seat and cousin Ibrahim Shah was sitting on the front seat. We proceeded to our village, when at about 4-30 p.m. We reached at the back gate of PMC Hospital, we saw that on the southern side of the road two persons were standing who were seen and identified to be same Jurial Shah and the same unidentified person who came at the clinic and on the northern side a woman was standing, they signalled our car to stop, for which Dr. Ibrahim Shah informed that she is Nurse Shahzadi Sonia Shaikh. Then cousin Ibrahim Shah asked the driver to stop the vehicle, on which driver stopped the car. Then Staff Nurse Shahzadi Sonia instigated both the standing persons Jurial Shah and unknown person that he was Dr. Ibrahim Shah, not to spare him and kill him, then both the persons took out pistols from their folds and Jurial Shah fired straight from pistol on Ibrahim Shah and unidentified person fired straight on driver Muhammad Hafeez with intention to commit his murder, which hit them. We then raised cries and came out of the car. Then both the armed persons and Nurse Shahzadi Sonia boarded in a white colour Alto Car standing on the southern side. One person was sitting on the driving seat, who has also been seen by us clearly and would be identified if seen again. Then all the accused persons decamped in the car towards western side. Due to harassment, we could not see the number of car. We then saw our injured and saw that cousin Ibrahim Shah was having fire arm injuries on his left shoulder, muscles and one fire on his right nipple and one fire below it, and one fire on right lumber region and was bleeding. We then brqught both the injured persons in PMC Hospital, Nawabshah, where Dr. Syed Ibrahim Shah died. We then gave such information to the police of P.S. A-Section and the police came there. We then got conducted the postmortem of cousin Dr. Ibrahim Shah and after the postmortem we brought the dead body to our Village, where remained busy in the burial of the dead body and now after getting free I present myself and complain that Jurial Shah with the help of two unknown persons at the instigation of Nurse Shahzadi Sonia Shaikh, Jurial Shah fired with his pistol on Syed Ibrahim Shah and killed him and unknown person fired on Driver Muhammad Hafeez and seriously injured him. I am complainant.
Investigation be made."
3. During the course of investigation, Police arrested the applicant/accused and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. The applicant/accused submitted a post-arrest bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who by his order transferred the same to the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 17-10-2012. Hence this bail application.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused, learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.G. For the State.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused has contended that the case against the applicant/accused is false, fabricated, concocted and she has been implicated in this case malafidely for ulterior reasons. He further contended that no any specific role of causing injury is attributed to the applicant/accused. There is delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. Without any plausible explanation. Mere her presence is shown at the place of incident empty-handed without any overt act. Learned counsel also contended that it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether she shared her common intention and actively participated in the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the case against the applicant/accused requires further inquiry. It is further contended that the above incident is unwitnessed and same has been engineered by complainant by setting up false witnesses who are servants of complainant. He further submitted that the applicant/accused has no relation or any connection either with deceased Dr. Syed Ibrahim Shah or co-accused Jurial Shah. The case against applicant/accused being a woman falls under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The charge-sheet has. Been submitted in the trial Court hence the applicant/accused is no more required for further investigation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on an unreported order dated 22-12-2012 passed by this Court in Criminal Bail A. No,885/2012 and also placed reliance on the following case-law:--
(ii) YLR 2005 Karachi 190.
(iii) YLR 2012 Karachi 1066.
(iv) PCr.LJ 2010 Karachi 280.
(v) PLD 1996 SC 241.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced at Bar by the Advocate for the applicant/accused. He submitted that the name of applicant/accused with specific role of instigation is attributed to her. The alleged incident has occurred in broad-daylight, there could be no case of mistaken identity. During the process of investigation, the P.Ws. Have fully supported the prosecution case. Delay in lodging F.I.R. Is fully explained. The case is at preliminary stage hence applicant/accused is not entitled for the concession of bail.
7. Learned D.P.G. For the State has adopted the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record including the police papers quite carefully and also examined the case-law cited at Bar.
9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/accused who has raised multiple grounds in favour of grant of this application which are mostly general in nature, the crux of the above grounds is that she has played no active role in the commission of above incident as she was empty-handed and mere presence at the place of incident and claiming the benefit of proviso as envisaged in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Which reads as under:- "Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years (or any woman) or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail."
10. This provision of law does not entitle every woman to be released on bail who is guilty of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. Woman is not entitled to the grant of bail as a right in every case. Courts generally take lenient view while dealing with the bail applications of women and exercise discretion in their favour in suitable cases. Such discretion, however is to be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
While deciding such matters, the Court should be vigilant and should carefully and minutely examine the facts and circumstances of the case and by no means take a lenient view.
11. The other merits of the case are that accused is actually the main factor in this case as the incident happened as deceased Doctor Ibrahim Shah, A.M.S. Posted at PMC Hospital, Nawabshah was strict to the applicant/accused who was working as a Nurse in that Hospital and she was highly annoyed therefor, she and absconder accused Jurial Shah threatened the deceased about the strictness shown towards the applicant and if repeated, the deceased shall face consequences. It is also on record that similar threats were already extended to the deceased hereinbefore by co-accused Jurial Shah with whom she had relations.
12. Prima facie the evidence reveals that applicant/accused along with co-accused waylaid the deceased who was accompanied by his friends and she pointed towards his accomplices and told them to kill the deceased and did not spare him. Accordingly, accused Jurial Shah fired multiple shots at the deceased and driver Hafeez who received the injuries. Postmortem examination report reveals 11 injuries received by deceased from close range with blackening. All these things appear that it was a case of pre-planned cold-blooded murder.
13. The main accused is still at large. Prima facie applicant/accused has a role in this brutal murder. There are number of P. Ws. Who have given statements involving her as an accused present at the place of incident. The evidence of injured victim cannot be brushed aside at this initial stage of the case. As the evidence of single truthful witness would be sufficient to warrant conviction. The case of conspirator and abettor stands at a lower footing than that of the accused instigating his companions to commit the crime. Prima facie there is no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. Delay in lodging the evidence per se is explained in the F.I.R. That after incident both injured were brought to Hospital where deceased Dr. Ibrahim Shah died and they gave an information to Police Station A-Section Shaheed Benazirabad and police came at the place of wardat. All these things shall be verified during the trial. Proceedings. Hence, at this stage it is premature and cannot be said that it is a belated and unexplained F.I.R. I have also gone through the case-law relied upon by the counsel for the applicant but the same are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. As such for the foregoing reasons, prima facie there appears reasonable grounds for believing the involvement of applicant/accused in this case, which provides punishment of death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I dismiss this bail application.
15.The above observations are tentative in nature for the purpose of deciding this bail application and will not prejudice the case of either side.