1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused Mst. Raheema Birhamani in Crime No,11 of 2001 registered at Police Station Put Gul Muhammad under sections 302, 109, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Karim Bux on 1-7- 2001 at 0300 hours are that his nephew Peer Buksh was married to the applicant about fifteen/sixteen months back, but for about twelve months she stayed with her parents, as her parent did not allow her to reside with her husband Peer Buksh. It was about four/five months back that Peer Buksh brought his wife Raheema to his house,, through the Nekmards of the locality.
3. However'', on 28-6-2001 the mother-in-law of ,Peer Buksh, Mst. Peerani and his brother-in-law' took away Mst. Raheema to their village. Peer Buksh who had brought back Raheema after one night, told the complainant that his mother-in-law and brother-in-law Ghulam Haider had threatened him of dire consequences in case he does not divorce Raheema. The complainant further alleged that on 30-6-2001 at sunset when he came back from Pul Gul Muhammad, where he had gone with one Suleman for some personal work, he found Peer Buksh lying on a cot in restless condition.
4. Upon enquiry Peer Buksh informed the complainant that his wife Raheema has mixed some poisonous substance in the tea, she served him at 5-00 p.m., causing restlessness and pain in his stomach. Peer Buksh disclosed the above facts to Din Muhammad Birhamani and other villagers also, who had came to the house in the meanwhile. Peer Buksh then became unconscious and suffered fits. Since there was no transport, we could not take Peer Buksh to any doctor, whose condition deteriorated further and he died at about. 11-00 p.m. The complainant nominated Mst.
5. Peerani and Ghulam Haider the mother and brother of the applicant as the applicant's accomplice in the crime. -- That the applicant was arrested on 8-7-2001 and the prosecution submitted challan before the trial Court on 23-7-2001.
6. A bail application moved by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu was rejected by order dated 20-3-2002, hence this application.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant due to enmity over matrimonial affairs.
8. He has further submitted that no one has witnessed the applicant poisoning the deceased. The learned counsel contended that the fact that although according to the complainant it was at sunset that he reached home and found Peer Buksh lying on a cot in pain and was informed by Peer Buksh that he has been poisoned by the applicant, but neither was Peer .Buksh taken to any hospital nor was any doctor called to his rescue despite his deteriorating condition, even though he survived till 11-00 p.m., cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case. He further submitted that although samples were taken from the body of the deceased on 1-7-2001 but were received by the Chemical Examiner on 11-7-2001. Such a delay without any plausible explanation creates doubt about authenticity of the Chemical Examiner's report. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that the delay of 7 days in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. for which also there is no explanation, has reduced the value of such statement to nil. The counsel pointed out that no incriminating article have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further contended that since the applicant is a lady, her case falls within the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has urged that the applicant who is in custody since 8-7-2001 be enlarged on bail.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment's reported in 1985 SCM R 1050, 1985 SCM R 1847, 1996 PCr.L.I 283, 2001 PCr.LJ 1831 and 1996 SCM R 1553.
10. Mr. Mashooq Ali Samoo, learned Assistant Advocate-General, while opposing the bail has submitted that the motive for murder has clearly been stated in the F.I.R. as a matrimonial dispute/differences between the deceased and the applicant's family. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses Suleman and Din Muhammad have fully corroborated the statement of the complainant to the effect that the deceased before dying had disclosed to them that he had been poisoned by the applicant and that the Chemical Examiner report also shows that the deceased was poisoned. He has contended that the above facts do prima facie connect the applicant with the alleged offence, and thus she is not entitled to be released on bail.
11. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record with the assistance of the learned Assistant Advocate-General.
12. In the case of Rahmat Bibi reported in 1985 SCM R 1050, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of cancellation of her bail granted by the Sessions Court and to release her on bail. In that the case also the accused (Mst. Rahmat Bibi) was facing trial alongwith her mother and uncle and one Malik Niaz Ahmed, for having murdered her husband by serving her with meals administered with poison. It was alleged that she in order to get rid of her husband had mixed poison in his soup as she has developed criminal intimacy with the co-accused Malik Niaz Ahmed and it was claimed that the deceased before dying had informed his brother Ghulam Mustafa and Zafar Ali his step-brother that he has feeling sick in the stomach after he was served food by his wife, Mst. Rahmat Bibi and the Chemical Examiner's report had confirmed that the viscera of the deceased were found to contain insecticide, Mst. Rahmat Bibi was, however, granted bail by the Sessions Court, mainly on the ground that no direct evidence was available to show that there was any conspiracy or participation in commission of the offence on the part of the accused Mst. Rahmat Bibi. It was further observed that the accused being a woman her case fell under the provision to section 497, Cr.P.C. and there were circumstances which required further enquiry in the guilt of the accused. The bail granted to Rahmat Bibi was however, cancelled by the Lahore High Court on the ground that the offence had taken place in the house of the petitioner's parents and that the deceased had made a dying declaration implicating the accused. However, the Honourable Supreme Court after pursuing the impugned order whereby her bail was cancelled held that the petitioner Mst. Rahma Bibi was entitled to bail and release her accordingly.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Honourable Supreme Court's judgment reported in 1985 SCM R 1050, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, therefore, the applicant Mst. Raheema Birhamani be released on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P,R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
14. The application is disposed of in the above terms.