MUNAWAR Bibi and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two petitioners, Munawar Bibi and Ghulam Haider, who were charged under sections 10/11 and 13/14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, with Section 344 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subsequently added. The prosecution alleged that the first petitioner sold the complainant for prostitution, while the second petitioner acted as a guard. The petitioners contended that the FIR was delayed by five months, they were previous non-convicts, and had been incarcerated for three months. The Court held that the first petitioner, being a woman, was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the second petitioner, the Court found that the allegation of merely guarding the complainant warranted further inquiry into his guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted both petitioners to bail, establishing that gender and the need for further inquiry into specific roles are valid grounds for granting bail in such cases.
- Is a female accused entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if other cases are registered against her?
- Does an allegation of merely guarding a victim in a prostitution case constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail petition be amended to include additional sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the hearing?
- Section 344, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 13, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has requested orally to allow him to add section 344, P.P.C. In the bail petition as according to him, the same was added in the case subsequently. His request has been allowed in the interest of justice and he has made the necessary addition in the bail today before the view of the Court.
2. Petitioners Munawar Bibi and Ghulam Haider through the instant petition have sought for post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.13, dated 20-1-2004, registered under sections 10/11 and 13/14, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979 with Police Station, Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura. Later on the police have added section 344, P.P.C. In the same.
3. Precisely the allegation against petitioner No.1, Munawar Bibi is that she had sold the complainant Mst. Kiran to different persons for the purposes of prostitution and petitioner No.2, Ghulam Haider had been guarding her in such act.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have been falsely roped in; that there is delay of five months in lodging of, the F .I.R. Without any reasonable explanation, that petitioner No.1 is a woman and petitioner No.2 is her servant and he has been roped in merely on account of his such connection with her, that he is an old person; that they both are behind the bars for the last about three months, and that they are previous non-convicts.
5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides with the help of the available record. The petitioner No.1 is a woman. Hence first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is attracted to her case. She admittedly is a previous non-convict. Mere registration of other cases against her cannot come in her way to the grant of bail to her particularly in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case.
7. As regards petitioner No.2 Ghulam Haider, there is mere allegation against him that he had been guarding the complainant when she was used for the purposes of prostitution. He is stated to be the servant of the petitioner No.1 and an old person. The question that he, if merely due to guarding the complainant in the act of prostitution can be held liable for the alleged offence needs serious consideration. Hence, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of the section 497, Cr.P.C. He is also stated to be' previous non-convict.
8. They both are stated 'to be behind the bars for the last more than three months.
9. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and they both are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand each) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.