1. ' This order will dispose of bail application submitted on behalf of applicant Parveen Iqbal, who is employed as A.S.-I. In Police Department and was posted at Women Police Station, District Central, Karachi. She is involved in F.I.R. No,265 of 1995 which was registered at P.S. Khawaja Ajmer Nagri on 9-7-1995 for the offences under section 302/34, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with section 109/114, P.P.C. The complainant in this case is Muhammad Ashraf son of Khushi Muhammad resident of House No,L-638, Sector-4, North Karachi. The English translation of the F.I.R. Reads as under:--- "I have been residing with my family at the abovementioned address and doing the business of bakery. At the instance of Altaf Hussain the members of M.Q.M. Rabita Committee namely Shoaib Bukhari, Wakeel Ahmed, Tariq Javid and other members announced two days' complete strike in connection with the death of former Councillor of M.Q.M. Syed Muhammad Aslam Sabzwari with the result that all bazars were closed in District Central due to strike. Syed Muhammad Aslam Shah former Councillor, P.P:P., Malik Muhammad Yousuf, Sher Malik and other office-bearers/workers who having good influence in the area had got opened the bazar. I alongwith Syed Muhammad Aslam Shah, Malik Muhammad Yousuf, Sher Malik, Naveed, Allah Ditta Shahid, Zahid Hussain Shah, Naik Muhammad, Muhammad Saleem Rana, Amjad Plumber and others were sitting in the Estate Agency of Sarfraz to look after the bazar. At about 11-45 hours one white Suzuki Mehran Car came from West to East from Sector-4 wherein besides the driver three unknown persons were sitting who seem to be terrorists of M.Q.M. To whom I can identify on seeing them. The said unknown accused persons suddenly opened fire with fire-arms on me and on the said persons and others with intent to kill me and abovesaid persons with the result that Syed Muhammad Aslam Shah and Malik Muhammad Yousuf died on the spot. There is Zahid Hussain, Sher Malik, Naveed, Naik Muhammad, Alla Ditta Shahid and Muhammad Saleem Rana sustained injuries."
2. ' The bail application of the applicant/accused was rejected by the learned trial Court on 14-11- 1995.
3. ' We have heard Raja Sikandar Khan Yaser, learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Muhammad Hanif Kashmiri, learned counsel for the complainant.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that (a) she has not been named in the F.I.R. And was also not identified by the complainant and other P.Ws. In the identification test; (b) no incriminating article was recovered from her possessions to connect her with the commission of the alleged offence; (c) the challan in this case was submitted on 19-9-1995 and she was placed in column No,II (d); she was released under section 169, Cr.P.C. On 8-7-1995 as being found innocent during investigation but she was implicated after the submission of challan at the instance of the Investigation Officer falsely on 21-9-1995 without any positive evidence against her; (e) the applicant/accused as a lady police officer never indulged in politics and even otherwise being a woman she is entitled to bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; (f) she is neither a previous convict nor involved in any other case.
5. ' Learned counsel for the State while opposing the bail application submitted that no doubt she was found innocent during initial investigation before the submission of the challan but subsequently a personal diary of the accused was secured by the I.O. Which shows that she had close relations with the co-accused and was involved in the commission of the alleged offence.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that from perusal of statements of P.Ws.
7. Rashid Malook and Muhammad Saleem Shahzad which were recorded on 10-8-1995 as well as reading of personal diary of 11-8-1994, 13-8-1994, 3-9-1994, 4-9-1994, 5-9-1994, 29-9-1994, 30-9- 1994, 31-9-1994, 2-10-1994, 6-10-1994, 7-10-1994, 22-10-1994, 29-10-1994, 30-12-1994 she stands fully implicated alongwith the co-accused particularly accused, Adeel, who is also employed as Head Constable in Police Department, Sindh. Lastly, he submitted that she being a Police Officer abused her authority, therefore, at this stage she is not entitled to the concession of bail.
8. ' We have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. So far as the personal diary of the accused is concerned that reflects two vital aspects (a) that she had love affair with co-accused Adeel which is evident from the following few verses: {{URDU TEXT}}
(b) that co-accused Adeel was a habitual drunkard and he had illicit relation with the applicant/accused which can be illustrated by quoting the following passage from the diary dated 29-9-1994 although it is full of such instances: {{URDU TEXT}} ' There is absolutely nothing in the said diary to indicate that at any stage the applicant instigated co-accused Head Constable Adeel to commit the murder of the deceased. Now there remains only statements of witnesses Saleem Shahzad and Rashid Malook. They alleged that they heard the applicant/coaccused instigating co-accused Adeel to finish the deceased as he intended to create hurdles and they would not be able to marry each other. On a tentative assessment of the entire evidence particularly the statements which were recorded during re-investigation after the submission of the challan, we are of the view that there are certain doubts about the presence of P.W. Saleem Shahzad and Rashid Malook at the time of the alleged incident and benefit of this doubt coupled with the fact that she was placed in column No,2 of the challan, should be given to the applicant/co-accused as the matter require further enquiry. There is nothing in the evidence to show that she abused or misused her position as a Police Officer. She had addressed applications to the higher authorities wherein she alleged mala fide and victimization against the investigation officers but at this stage this aspect of the matter does not require serious consideration. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case the applicant being a woman is entitled to bail though not as a matter of right under proviso to subsection (1) to section. 497, Cr.P.C. It would be relevant to observe that the intention of the Legislature seems to be that bail should invariably be granted to a woman unless special circumstances exist on record to warrant refusal of bail. Accordingly, she is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac rupees only) and P.R.
9. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.