PESHAWAR, Dec 20: An anti-terrorism court here on Saturday granted bail to a woman charged with killing of a senior lawyer and kidnapping of his son for ransom.

The court presided over by Judge Hayat Ali Shah observed that no role was assigned to the applicant, Hussan Pari, by the complainant and prosecution in the commission of the offence. The court directed the applicant to furnish two sureties of Rs100,000 each.The FIR of the occurrence was registered at Pishtakhara police station on Jan 9 2008 under section 7 of the Anti Terrorism Act read with section 302, 365-A, 324, 368, 148 and 149 of Pakistan Penal Code.

A senior advocate, Abdul Bari, was killed by unidentified gunmen when he was going to courts along with his son Advocate Saqib Bari and driver Mehr Gul near Sufaid Dehri. His son was abducted by the attackers and the driver had also received injuries. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the driver.

The kidnapped advocate remained in captivity for 78 days and was finally recovered by the police from a residence allegedly owned by Nazir Gul, husband of the woman applicant.

The woman was arrested along with four men identified as Nazir Gul, Zakirullah, Zahir Shah and Nadir Shah. Five other accused persons have been absconding.

Advocate Saleem Shah Hoti appeared for the applicant and contended that she was arrested on March 26, 2008, and was having a suckling baby with her in the prison.

He contended that under an ordinance allowing bail to females in most of the cases it had been clearly mentioned that a woman charged in murder or terrorism was entitled to bail if she had remained imprisoned for six months and her trial had yet to conclude. He added that the applicant had spent about nine months in the prison and her trial had yet not concluded.

Salim Shah argued that no role was assigned to the applicant in the commission of the offence by the complainant and the recovered lawyer. He added that her only crime was that she was wife of one of the male-accused, Nazir Gul.

The state prosecutor argued that the kidnapped lawyer was recovered from a residence where the applicant had also been residing. He added that the kidnapped lawyer was kept in the said residence and he had heard the applicant talking to the male accused persons.