1. ' Mst. Zohran Bibi and Mst. Haseena Bibi have prayed for grant of bail in Crime No,81 of 2000 registered with Police Station Mubina Town, Karachi East under sections 364-A and 302/34, P.P.C.
2. ' Briefly stated, allegations against both the applicants as per F.1.R. Lodged on 27-8-2000 at 9-00 hours are that complainant, Ashiq Hussain and both the lady accused are neighbours residing in hutments (Jhugies) near Noman Garden Abdul Hassan Afandi Road, Karachi. Both the ladies were being visited by co-accused Abdul Aziz and Faiz Muhammad on which the complainant, Ashiq Hussain raised objection. Both the male accused and Zohra Bibi, therefore, issued threats to the complainant q dire consequence. On 27-8-2000 during morning hours while the complainant was available in his house, his children and niece Shabana came there and informed him that co- accused Faiz Muhammad and Abdul Aziz had abducted Farzana and then P.Ws. Haji Waggan and Mumtaz informed him to have seen both the two accused taking away Farzana in a Mazda vehicle.
3. ' It is stated that after completion of investigation co-accused Faiz Muhammad, Abdul Aziz and both the lady accused were challaned before the Magistrate of jurisdiction. They are facing trial before Additional VIth Sessions Judge, District East Karachi.
4. ' Since section 364, P.P.C. Was a scheduled offence as per schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 a question was raised whether the trial Court namely VIth Additional Sessions Judge enjoyed the jurisdiction to commence with trial of the applicants and could grant bail to applicants.
5. ' Mr. Shoukat Hussain Zubedi, Advocate assisted this Court in resolution of the above question. He submitted that initially sections 364 and 364-A, P.P.C. Were made exclusively triable by the Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Act No,XXVII of 1997), which position remained unaltered, till a Notification viz. SRO 1236(I) of 1997, dated 13-12-1997 was issued introducing an amendment in the schedule whereby sections 364 and 364-A, P.P.C. Were omitted. He submitted that subsequently, though amendments were introduced by two Ordinances bearing Nos.4 and 13 of 1999 but the position remained as it was at the time of Notification, dated 13-12-1997. He submitted that the present legal position is that sections 364 and 364-A, P.P.C. Are triable by a Court of an ordinary jurisdiction.
6. ' In the above circumstances, I heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the applicant and the State Counsel. Also with their assistance, I examined the material made available before me.
7. ' Contentions of learned counsel for the applicants are that the F.I.R. Has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about 12 hours though the distance between the place of incident and the police station is only one hundred yards, name of applicant Mst. Haseena does not find place in the F.I.R.: the complainant is not an eye-witness of the abduction or the murder, three eye-witnesses namely, Shabana, Mumtaz and Waggan, on whose information he lodged F.I.R. Have, in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C., assigned no role to the two lady accused about the occurrence of the incident, no recovery of any A incriminating article has been made from their possession or on the pointing of these two ladies accused and that there is no judicial or extrajudicial confession made by them. It was further contended by learned counsel that applicant, Mst. Haseena, has a suckling child and the other lady accused Mst. Zohra an old lady are languishing in the jail for the last one and half years.
8. ' Not controverting the above submissions, learned State Counsel very frankly stated no objection to the grant of the bail: He submitted that there is no specific allegations at all against both the applicants about the abduction or killing of the deceased.
9. ' It will be pertinent to note that previously these two applicants filed Criminal Bail Application No,200 of 2001 which was disposed of by my orders, dated 19th March, 2001 with directions that learned trial Court would take all possible efforts by adopting pertinent modes of service of process to procure attendance of witnesses namely, Mst. Shamim, complainant and baby Shabana within sixty days from the date of that order. No compliance of these orders was made uptill the fresh application moved by the applicant was dismissed by learned trial Court.
10. ' Cumulative effect of circumstances discussed above was that by my short order, dated 18th March, 2002, 1 admitted both the lady accused to bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each and P.R. In the like amount the satisfaction of the trial Court. These are the reasons for the same.