ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Shabbiran Bibi has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.227/2016 dated 10.05.2016 under sections 376, 302, 338-C, 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Satellite Town, Sargodha.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that she along with her co-accused Muhammad Bilal committed the Isqat-i-Janin of Mussarat Bibi sister of the complainant by administering some poisonous substance who later on died. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has sent the specimen of stomach, spleen, liver, uterus and kidney of deceased Mussarat Bibi to Punjab Forensic Science Agency whereas the report of PFSA has been received by the I.O. which is present on the record and according to the report no poisonous substance was detected in the viscera of the diseased which shows that the allegation of administering poisonous substance by the petitioner to the deceased is belied by the medical evidence (report) and this fact has created serious doubt in the ocular as well as medical evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled a Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State "2014 SCM R 12". It is settled law that the benefit of slightest doubt arising out of prosecution case can be given to the accused even at bail B stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on case titled as "Imbrass and another v. The State and another" 2016 SCM R 1558. It is settled law that question of sharing common intention with his co-accused for committing the murder of deceased shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. The petitioner is a woman aged about 65 years and because of her gender, her case falls within the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. She is behind the bars since 21.05.2016. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Her further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.