1. ' The appealant is facing trial along with one Abdul Karim in Sessions Case No,342 of 1997 (The State v. Abdul Karim and another), registered under F.I.R. No,123 of 1997 under section 302/34, Q&D by Police Station Gadap, District Malir.
2. ' Briefly, the facts are that in-between the night of 12th and 13th June, 1997, the complainant heard commotion from the house of Juma Khan, when he reached there he found Juma Khan was lying bleeding with stab wounds over his chest and stomach. At that time, it is alleged that the present applicant, wife of Jumma Khan, was not there but was coming out of the toilet. The injured informed the complainant that Abdul Karim, co-accused, had given him stabbed. The injured thereafter died, such F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant and police took up the investigation, during which they arrested the present applicant. On completion of the investigation the applicant was sent up to face trial before the Sessions Court, Malir, where she did not succeed in obtaining the bail, hence this application.
3. ' It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the F.I.R. Is silent as far as the role of the applicant in the commission of the offence, as the complainant has categorically stated in the F.I.R.
4. And his further statement that it was Abdul Karim who had stabbed Juma Khan to death. It is also on the record that the present applicant/lady was not there near the injured at the time when the complainant and other persons reached her house on the cries of Juma Khan. The complainant has stated that when they reached there, lady/present applicant was coming out of the toilet which by itself indicates that the applicant was not present at the time of commission of offence required consideration. Therefore, vicarious liability cannot be attributed to the present applicant.
5. Reliance has been placed on Khudoo alias Khuda Bux v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 452, wherein the allegation against the applicant was that he had facilitated in the commission of the offence although the allegation of vicarious liability was against the accused/applicant. It was held in that case, that the case was still distinguishable from the case of co-accused, who had actually committed the offence.
6. The learned A.A.-G. Has frankly conceded and stated that he does not object to the grant of bail for the reason that the applicant is a lady and the other fact is that on the plaint reading of the F.I.R., it appears that at the time of the commission of the offence she was not present at the scene and was coming out of the toilet after complainant and other persons had gone to the house of Juma Khan, the deceased. The learned A.A.-G. Also points out that from the statement of the complainant it seems that injured had stated that it was Abdul Karim who had caused the injuries.
7. Thus, the question of vicarious liability is yet to be established. The learned A.A.-G. Had, therefore, stated that false implication of the present applicant/lady by her step-children cannot be ruled out.
8. ' I have no reasons to disagree with the learned A.A.-G. Even the learned Sessions Judge has accepted the situation, that the lady was not present at the time of the incident but the only thing prevailing upon the learned Sessions Judge was, tliat Abdul Karim was the paramour of the lady and she had associated him in committing the murder of her husband Juma Khan. This also does not find any support from the record and the learned A.A.-G. Frankly states that there is nothing, at this stage, to indicate that Abdul Karim was paramour of the present applicant/lady.
9. ' Under these circumstances, the case of the applicant calls for further enquiry, as such, she is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I accept her bail plea, directing that she shall be released after she furnishes solvent surety in the sum of Rs,75,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.