1. ' The above bail application was dismissed by a short order, dated 5-8-1999 and these are the detailed reasons for the same.
2. ' Mst. Nazia was married to her cousin Irfan who is son of the applicant Wali Muhammad. The marriage did not appear to be successful as Mst. Nazia always complained to her father that she was being treated cruelly by her husband Irfan and always got beatings at the hands of her husband. The complaints of Mst. Nazia had no effect and Irfan did not mend his ways. On 11-4-1999 at about 8-00 p.m. One Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti heard cries coming from the house of Irfan and he, therefore, in company of another neighbor Ghulam Rasool rushed to the house of accused Irfan. He found Mst. Nazia was on fire Irfan had kerosine oil can in his hand and he was throwing kerosine on the body of Mst. Nazia. Witnesses Muhammad Yousuf and Ghulam Rasool managed to snatch the kerosine oil can from dr hands of Irfan and they put of the fire which had burnt Mst.
3. Nazia sufficiently. She had become unconscious. The witnesses then managed to take Mst. Nazia to Hospital Kunri Town after 3/4 days. Mst. Nazia there told them that on 11-4-1999 at about 8-00 p.m.
4. Accused Irfan had demanded meals from her on which Mst. Nazia told him that there was no flour in the house, therefore, she could not, cook the meals. Irfan was infuriated and he abused her and went outside. After sometime he returned with kerosine oil cane in his hand which he sprinkled over the body of his wife Mst. Nazia and lit her. Wali Muhammad the present applicant the father of Irfan was all along present at the house and in the F.I.R. It is mentioned that Mst. Nazia had informed, the witnesses that it was his instigation that Irfan brought the kerosine oil and sprinkled over her and put her on fire with the intention to kill her.
5. ' Applicant Wali Muhammad alongwith Irfan was arrested and challaned to stand the trial for offence punishable under sections 324 and 109, P.P.C. And the request of the applicant for grant of hail was turned down by the trial Court for very sound reasons. The hunts ott ihe person of Mst.
6. Nazia were seen by the Medical Officer who had certified as of very serious nature and that Mst.
7. Nazia was in a serious condition.
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicant in a usual fashion tried to show to the Court that the applicant will be liable for the part he played totally forgetting that his son had put kerosine oil on a human being in the house who was burning and the applicant was simply riot doing anything. Wali Muhammad neither informed the police nor the parents of the girl who were not living in the same house it is the neighbourers who were attracted on cries and who saved the life of the girl. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the applicant had not done anything as read from the F.I.R. He deserves to be released on bail. It is the negative role of the applicant which made him liable to be an accomplice and it appears that it was at his connivance and instigation that his son lit his wife on fire. However, callous a person may be but the role of Wali Muhammad was seeing his daughter-in-law on fire put by his son and perhaps he simply stood enjoying the scene. In the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Mst. Nazia has specifically named both the accused persons Wali Muhammad and Irfan. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for ten years and to me the applicant does not deserve any sympathy or leniency and much less entitled not to be released on bail in the case at this stage.
9. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on 1994 SCM R 2051 in which case the bail was allowed as the victim had received the injury on his ankle and the Court found that it was not on a vital part of the body, besides the injury was found to be simple. In these circumstances it was found that it was yet to be seen that the accused had intention to kill the victim. The facts of this case are quite otherwise intention to kill was very clear from the fact that the kerosine oil was sprinkled on the victim and set to lit.
10. ' The learned counsel has also relied on 1995 SCM R 127 in which case so many factors which are not present in this case were considered and bail was granted. The evidentiary value of the identification of accused in the said case was considered, belated examination of witnesses by the police was also considered which factors are alien to the present case.
11. ' The learned counsel forgot the human element and a role of innocent and a gentle person; under the circumstances of this case Wali Muhammad should have reprimanded his son and tried to save Mst. Nazia and should have been the first, person to become a witness against his son and state truth before the police and before the Court. Such role was omitted by the applicant which speaks volumes of his role in the actual offence. Therefore, the attempt of the learned counsel was astonishingly misplaced and the cases which he cited were actually not in any way related to the facts and circumstances of this case and none of the cases helps him. It is worthwhile to observe that in criminal case specially in bail applications, every case has got it own circumstances and facts and the bails are granted under those particular circumstances and except broad principles laid clown by the superior Courts no other example is attracted in. The present case and cannot he said to be a deciding for the purpose of deciding a bail application. Consequently, I find no merit in this bail application and reject the same.