Mst. Munawar Bibi petitioner being accused in case F.I.R. No.733/94. Dated 16-11-1994 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Moghalpura, Lahore has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore.
2. Briefly the facts of the case as narrated in the F. I. R. Are that on 16-11-1994 Mst. Ulfat Bibi complainant while admitted in the hospital made statement before S.I. Abdul Rehman that at about 4-30 p.m. She was present in the house alongwith her mother and brother Muhammad Shafique when Mst. Munawar Bibi petitioner came there and asked her that she was being called by Mst. Tahir Bibi co-accused. She accompanied her alongwith her younger brother Jamil Ahmad and reached in the house of Tahira. Mst. Tahira sent her younger brother out of her house. Then, Mst. Tahira and Mst. Munawar petitioner tied her hands with a rope and then tied the rope with the cot. When inquired from them as to what they were doing, Mst. Tahira co-accused said that they were going to see as to how much she had strength. Later on, Mst. Tahira picked up a gallon of kerosine oil and sprinkled the same on her body. Mst. Munawar petitioner set her on fire. On hearing hue and cry raised by her, the P. Ws. Were attracted at the spot. The accused fled away from the spot. She was removed to the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a woman aged 60 years and as such her case falls under proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.; the story of the prosecution from a bare reading of F.I.R. Seems to be not plausible; statement of the complainant cannot be considered as dying declaration that Mst. Tahira co-accused and Mst. Ulfat have relations but petitioner has no relation with the deceased.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the grant of bail and supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the sides at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. With the role of putting the victim on fire.
Medical evidence and P.Ws. Have fully supported the prosecution case and after completion of the investigation challan has been submitted in the Court declaring the petitioner to be accused. The question whether the statement of the alleged victim can be termed as dying declaration will be determined at the trial after recording the evidence. This cannot be done at bail stage. Further counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any malice or mala fide either on the part of the police or complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in such an offence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly the bail application is dismissed.