' Mst. Sughran Mai deceased of this case was the daughter of Ata Hussain petitioner-accused. She was married to Nazar Hussain about seven years before. Unfortunately the relations between the spouses became strained and she came back to her parents' house. In the meantime it was suspected that Mst. Sughran Mai had her illicit relations with one Muhammadan. There were disputes between the aforesaid spouses. Nazar Hussain husband of Mst. Sughran Mai contracted his second marriage. On 3-8-1994 Mst. Sughran Mai was found hanging in the room by her father Ata Hussain. She had expired. Ata Hussain reported the matter to the police on 3-8-1994. The inquest report was prepared. However, on 12-8-1994 F.I.R. No,138 was registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmadpur East under section 302, P.P.C. In the F.I.R. No accused has been named except that Muhammadan abovementioned did not leave Mst. Sughran Mai towards her alleged nefarious activities.
2. The case was investigated. Some persons were joined in the investigation. At one stage one habeas corpus was filed and the persons were set at liberty. However, on 3-5-1995 the statement of the neighbourer Mst. Taj Mai was recorded by the police when she stated that she was in her house when Hafiz Abdul Razzak alias Mashooq and Jindwadda had arrived in her house as guests.
She heard an alarm from the house of her neighbourer Ata Hussain. From over the partition wall of the houses she saw that Ata Hussain had placed Dopatta around the neck of Mst. Sughran Mai and was taking her to the room. Towards the same fact the statements of Abdul Razzak alias Mashooq and Jindwadda were recorded by the police on 30-5-1995. Ata Hussain petitioner was arrested as the accused of the case on 31-5-1995 who is said to have made his confession before the Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East on 1-6-1995 without oath when he deposed that on the day of the death of Mst. Sughran he had seen her and Muhammadan embracing each other when he lost the control and strangulated Mst. Sughran to death with the Dopatta while Muhammadan made good his escape. Afterwards while on physical remand he is said to have led to the recovery of Dopatta which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the lower Court on the sole ground that he had made confessional statement before a Magistrate 1st Class. He has filed this petition before this Court to try his luck to be admitted to bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record before me. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the initial F.I.R. Has not been recorded according to the statement of Ata Hussain petitioner- accused who is the complainant of the case as he had named the culprits. This aspect of the matter cannot be considered while disposing of this bail application as the petitioner is at liberty to file the criminal complaint according to his own version, if desired by him. Legally this bail application has to be disposed of on the basis of material available at present and to be produced by the prosecution during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed before me that the statements of Mst. Taj Mai, Abdul Razzak alias Mashooq and Jindwadda P.Ws. Have been recorded with a considerable delay and the silence on their part is enough to express the view that the involvement of this petitioner is a question of further inquiry. According to him Ata Hussain petitioner did not make his confessional statement before the Magistrate 1st Class and that even otherwise from the bare reading of the said statement it is made out that it was due to Ghairat that Ata Hussain allegedly strangulated his daughter Mst. Sughran Mai. He added that in this view of the matter in this Islamic State of Pakistan the discretion may be used in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary learned State counsel laid the emphasis that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses corroborated by his judicial confession and the recovery of Dopatta is enough to prima facie connect Ata Hussain petitioner with the occurrence who is not entitled to be admitted to bail. My view is that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses Mst. Taj Mai, Abdul Razzak alias Mashooq and Jindwadda shall have to be viewed with caution. It has been held in Qabil Shah and others v. The State PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 697 that the veracity of the eye-witnesses examined 48 hours after the occurrence becomes doubtful.
It has also been held in Budho v. The State PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 76 that the statements of the P.Ws.
Recorded four days after the occurrence deserve to be ruled out of consideration. In the instant matter the occurrence took place on 3-8-1994. The statement of Mst. Taj Mai was recorded on 4-5- 1995. The statements of Abdul Razzak alias Mashooq and Jindwadda were recorded on 30-5-1995.
This silence on their part makes them as the accomplices for the occurrence if the matter is taken up technically and legally. Such type of witnesses are quite rife in our society in this area who under the influential persons of the area help the police to project the autocratic authority. This is one aspect of the matter. The other aspect is the judicial confession. I have to express my view that if the same is considered as a whole Ata Hussain had to take the law in his hands due to Ghairat. I am tempted to express that in the circumstances of such cases when the accused is none-else than the father if the Ghairat is not prompted and given the weight then there is an apprehension that the close dears and nears shall become Beghairat due to fear of heavy punishment. In an Islamic State the morals of the society have always been given the weight. Rather the efforts are made to improve the moral values. Obviously and legally Ata Hussain shall not be liable for the maximum punishment even if the weight is granted to the judicial confession. The recovery of Dopatta attributed to Ata Hussain petitioner is not very much material as admittedly the same was not stained with blood and secondly such articles are easily available in every house. The only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn from the aforesaid state of affairs and discussions would be that Ata Hussain petitioner-accused is entitled to be admitted to bail.
5. I, therefore, accept this bail application and admit Ata Hussain petitioner-accused to bail in the sum of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate Ahmadpur East who after attestation of the same shall send the relevant documents to the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.