' Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,191 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered in Police Station City, Abbottabad on 20-6-1999, the petitioner submitted bail application in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate for her release on bail but the same was rejected vide order, dated 5-7-1999 for want of jurisdiction. She then moved the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad but her application was rejected vide order, dated 20-7-1999. She has approached this Court for her release on bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Naseem (deceased) on 5-7-1999 at 18-15 hours in injured condition reported at Emergency Room A.M.C. Abbottabad that on the day of occurrence she was present in her house, her son Shafiqur Rehman was also .Present in the room and her daughter Mst.
Tazeem Bibi was also present in the house. On the day of occurrence, a quarrel took place between the complainant and her step daughter-in-law Mst. Ansar Jan the petitioner. Mst. Ansar Jan again started quarreling with the complainant and threatened her that she would not be spared and with this she went inside the room, took a bottle full of kerosine oil, sprinkled the same at the complainant and put her on fire. On her hue and cry the son of the complainant was attracted to the spot and tried to extinguish the fire and later on, the other persons of the Muhallah also joined him. Motive as stated by the complainant was that her husband had contracted second marriage and step sons and their wives were annoyed with his second marriage.
3. Initially case under section 324, P.P.C. Was registered but later on the complainant succumbed to her injuries, hence section of law was changed from 324, P.P.C. To 302, P.P.C.
4. Mr. Aurangzeb Mughal, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that occurrence allegedly took place at 3 p.m. Whereas the report was lodged at 6-15 p.m. No explanation for the delay has been given. He argued that the petitioner is innocent and there is no evidence against her at all. The deceased had put herself ablazed as she was mentally deranged. The only alleged eye-witness of the occurrence is Mst. Tazeem Akhtar daughter of the deceased who has not been examined by, the prosecution as she did not support the case of the prosecution. Statements of Zaheer Ahmed, Muhammad Shafique, Muhammad Saeed, Rafique and Shafi under section 161, Cr.P.C. Were recorded but they did not support the case of prosecution. Even Rafique, the husband of deceased, in his application submitted before the Deputy Commissioner for exemption of dead body from post-mortem has charged none.
5. It was further argued that the petitioner is mother of six children and one of them is hardly 1-1/2 years old who needs the attention of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is pregnant and her pregnaney is at advance stages. In this respect he submitted medical certificate of the D.H.Q.
Hospital, Abbottabad and prayed that she may be allowed bail so that she may give birth to child in open atmosphere.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for complainant and State argued that petitioner has been directly charged in the F.I.R., as well as in the dying declaration of deceased.
Shafiqur Rehman son of deceased has also charged her. The petitioner has committed murder of deceased brutally and she is not entitled to grant of bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The occurrence allegedly took place at 15-30 hours on 20-6-1999 but the F.I.R. Was lodged at 19- 00 hours. Distance between police station and place of occurrence is hardly 'two kilometres. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been explained. It is on record that the deceased was abnormal and remained under treatment in mental hospital at Dhodial for long time. The question as to whether the deceased committed suicide or was put at ablaze by the petitioner would be thrashed out at trial. The learned counsel mainly stressed the bail on the ground of advance pregnancy of the petitioner and her child who is hardly 1-1/2 years old who needs her attention and care. The certificate issued by D.H.Q. Hospital and Radiology Department of Women and Children Hospital, Abbottabad dated 28-10-1999 show that the petitioner has pregnancy of more than 8 months. Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the famous case of "Ghamidiyyah" had suspended the sentence of pregnant woman not only till delivery of child but also postponed it till suckling period, i,e,, two years obviously for the welfare of the child which shows the paramount importance/significance of the right of suckling child in Islam and the unprecedented care taken of and protection given to a child born or expected to be born by Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and this golden principle of administration of justice was followed by August Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case of Mst. Nusrat v. The State 1996 SCM R 973 and ad interim bail was granted to the petitioner. Similarly in case Mst. Nasreen v. The State 1998 M LD 1350 the accused was a woman and had a suckling baby aged hardly about one year. Bail was granted to her merely on the ground that welfare of suckling child demanded that the child should not be made to suffer in jail for murder allegedly committed by his mother. So, following the decision made by Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the famous case of "Ghamidiyyah" and dictums mentioned above, keeping in view the advance pregnancy of the petitioner and welfare of the child who is expected to be born in a couple of days, I admit her to bail provided she furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Abbottabad, who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means.