1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order dated 15- 4-1978 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he allowed Crl. Misc. No. 2285-B of 1978 and enlarged the respondent on bail.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that one Muhammad Hussain was murdered on 25-12-1977 and an F.I.R. Was lodged fn this connection by Amir Khan (Petitioner herein) on 27-12-1977 with the Chakwal Police, wherein Fida Hussain, son-in-law of the deceased, and Ahmad, who is stated to be the servant of the brother-in-law of aforesaid Fida Hussain, are alleged to have murdered the deceased by strangulating him in the area of village Khoday. The dead body of the deceased was found under a bridge. The allegation against the respondent was that she was having an illicit liaison with her son-in-law Fida Hussain and Muhammad Hussain deceased, who -was her husband was pressing upon her to desist from doing so and, therefore, she was interested in getting rid of him.
3. In the course of the investigation to persons, namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Hussain appear to have made statements before the Police to the effect that they had seen her quarrelling with her husband to days before the occurrence and that she was threatening that the deceased would be done away with and that her son-in-law Fida Hussain would continue to visit her. On this basis, the contention is that she had conspired with Fida Hussain and Ahmad to kill her husband.
4. The learned Judge in the High Court observed that the case was a fit one for release of the respondent on bail. Moreover, her case was covered by the proviso to section 497, Cr. P.C. Also.
5. Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the petitioner, felt difficulty in supporting this petition. He admitted that the eye-witnesses of the occurrence had not implicated the respondent; but submitted that there-was sufficient evidence-on the record to show she had conspired-with her co-accused Fida Hussain to do away with the deceased.
6. We do not think that the order passed by the High Court is illegal or perverse and are further of the view that sufficient grounds do not exist for interfering with his order, which is a discretionary one.
7. M.Y.HBail maintained.