' Mst. Rasoolan Bibi complainant got recorded F.I.R., No,122 on 5-6-1998 at Police Station Noor Kot, District Narowal, under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code with the allegation that her son Mukhtar Ahmad was married to Mst. Nighat Parveen and she was not happy with the said marriage who contracted illicit relations with Muhammad Iqbal co-accused. On the night falling between 29/30-5-1998 both Mst. Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused and Muhammad Iqbal co-accused administered poison to her son Mukhtar Ahmad under the garb of medicine who expired. The deceased was buried. She suspected Mst. Nighat Parveen who in her presence as well as that of Ghulam Rasool and Haji Muhammad Islam confessed her guilt that she murdered her husband Mukhtar Ahmad alongwith Muhammad Iqbal co-accused who also appeared before the Area Magistrate and got recorded her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the same effect i.e., she (Mst. Nighat Parveen accused) stated about the administration of poison by her to her husband Mukhtar Ahmad alongwith co-accused Muhammad Iqbal.
2. After registration of the F.I.R., law was set in motion. Mst. Nighat Parveen was arrested. The dead body was exhumed and different pieces of the body were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Lahore, who expressed the view that the poison was not detected in the parts of the body of the deceased sent to him.
3. Mst. Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused filed the petition for her admission to sail before the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal, who dismissed the same with the reasoning that she is named in the F.I.R., that .He made the confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that she made extra-judicial confession before the P.Ws. And that the laxity in such matters has shown upward tendency of crime in the society. Mst. Nighat Parveen has filed this petition before this Court with the same desire.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record before me. Learned counsel .For the petitioner has argued that the report of the Chemical Examiner has to be given the weight according to which poison was not found in the pieces of the body sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis which fact is enough to make out the case of the prosecution against Mst. Nighat Parveen that of further inquiry. He added that according to the F.I.R. Statement of Mst, Nighat Parveen was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the registration of the same which shall have to be viewed with caution in the technical sense and that the alleged extra-judicial confession is not of much legal weight. He continued that the bail application is to be disposed of under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the laxity has shown upward tendency of crime in the society has no legal force for the denial of the concession of bail to Mst. Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused who is a female and whose case is covered by the proviso (1) to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the contrary learned State counsel laid the emphasis that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., who confessed her guilt before the Magistrate 1st Class as well as before the prosecution witnesses and that the concession of bail has rightly been refused to the petitioner.
5. I would express that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for Mst. Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused has to prevail. I would express that the bail application has to be disposed of within the framework of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the extraneous considerations need not be given the legal force. The important aspect to be quoted at this stage is that the Chemical Examiner has opined that the poison was not found by him in any of the pieces of the body of the deceased sent to him for analysis and examination. This is the crux of the matter to make me to hold that the case of the prosecution against Mst. Nighat Parveen has become that of further inquiry. The F.I.R., was registered after getting recorded the statement of Mst.
Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this aspect has made me to express that the aforesaid statement shall have to be seen with caution.
The alleged extra-judicial confession of Mst. Nighat Parveen in the light of the negative report of the Chemical Examiner with respect to the administration of poison can be ignored even at this initial stage. I do not agree with the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the bail application on the ground that the "laxity has shown upward tendency of crime in the society". Mst. Nighat Parveen is a female whose case is covered by proviso (1) to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is entitled to the discretion of the Court thereof especially when the negative report of the Chemical Examiner about the administration of poison by her to her husband has not supported the prosecution version. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid analysis of the' matter at this initial stage and discussion would be that it is a case of admission of Mst. Nighat Parveen to bail.
5. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Mst. Nighat Parveen petitioner-accused to bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal with the direction to appear before the learned Trial Court on every date of hearing failing which the learned Trial Court may cancel her bail and, proceed further in accordance with law.