Through instant petition, the petitioner Mst. Afsar Bibi has sought for her after arrest bail in case FIR No, 218/03, under Sections 324, 334, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, 149 PPC, registered at Police Station Machhiwal, District Vehari.
2. Brief facts as alleged in the FIR are that complainant was sleeping in his Dera with his family. At 2.30 a.m. in the night, he woke up on the hue and cry of his son Gul Zaman. He went to the spot alongwith his brother Muhammad Yar and one Muhammad and saw that his son was lying in poll of blood. He told them that Muhammad Iqbal, who was armed with dagger. Ghulam Mustafa armed with dagger, Shafi armed with short gun, Yaseen, Siddique and Papoo empty handed had cut his penis. The motive for the occurrence as has been set up by the prosecution was that Gul Zaman had illicit relations with Mst. Afsar Bibi, the petitioner, hence this case was registered against all the accused named above.
3. Subsequently, statement of injured Gul Zaman was recorded on 14.12.2003, in which he mentioned that his penis was chopped off by Afsar Bibi. Bail petitions of petitioner have been rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Vehari as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Vehari vide order dated 24.12.2003 and 5.1.2004 respectively, hence this petition for the same relief before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that case against the petitioner is false that the petitioner is a womanfolk and her case falls under first proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. and she is entitled to the grant of post arrest bail. Further submits that the case is of two version, hence the case of petitioner is of further inquiry; that in fact she was abducted and was subjected to rape. Further submits that the accused named in the FIR namely Siddique and Ghulam Mustafa have already been released on bail, hence under the rule of consistency, petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail; that petitioner is in jail and is nor more required for any investigation purpose. There is no hope that her case would be concluded in near future.
5. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that she was herself admitted that she had chopped off penis of Gul Zaman. Challan has been submitted and the trial is in progress, therefore, she is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that at the first instance, the FIR was lodged against Muhammad Iqbal, Ghulam Mustafa, Shafi, Yaseen and Siddique. Allegation against them was that they were armed with deadly weapon and they had chopped off the penis of Gul Zaman and they were seen running away from the place spot in the light of torch. Subsequently, case was registered on these allegation on 8.11.2003 vide FIR No, 218/03 whereas supplementary statement was recorded of the injured person on 14.12.2003 after about one month and six days of the occurrence, wherein Gul Zaman has narrated entirely different story and involved the petitioner in this case as main culprit responsible for the commission of this heinous offence. The petitioner has put forwarded her own case for which she has tried her levelled best to get a case registered against Zaman, Shaa"oor, Ghaffer, Islam and Muhammad Mansha. Her cross version was recorded on 15.12.2003. Prosecution version has given in the FIR has been belied by the supplementary statement made by Gulzaman, victim recorded after one month and six days of the occurrence. Which version is correct is yet to be seen after recording of evidence at the trial stage. Third version has also been put forward by the petitioner herself where she had stated that she was subjected to rape and in order to save herself, she had used knife and has injured Gulzaman, which resulted in chopping off his penis. In view of the fact that prosecution had narrated the story in the FIR, which has totally been belied by the supplementary statement of the victim as well as cross version submitted by the petitioner. I am of the view that case against the petitioner is not free from doubt and falls under the ambit of further inquiry. Although in cross version, she has admitted cutting of penis of Gulzaman but that too in pecular circumstances narrated by her in her defence. The petitioner being lady, her case is covered under the first proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C., entitling her to be released on bail. The wisdom behind said proviso, to protect the women from the rigorous of imprisonment before trial and also to save womenfolk from the atmosphere of jail which is of course not congenial for women, children, minors and old age persons.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the view that case of the petitioner falls under the ambit of further inquiry, entitling her to be released on bail. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and she is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.