Mst. NISHAT SHAHEEN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Nishat Shaheen, who was implicated in a murder case registered under sections 302, 380, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused alongside her former husband, Naeem-ul-Ghani, following the discovery of the deceased, Altaf Pervaiz. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of direct evidence, the death of her co-accused, and her status as a woman with minor children. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The Court observed that the co-accused had died in custody and that the petitioner had been divorced, weakening the prosecution's theory of joint action. Emphasizing the petitioner's gender and the fact that she had minor children, the Court granted bail, holding that indefinite incarceration without the commencement of trial was unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against a female accused lacks strong prima facie evidence and trial is delayed, bail is appropriate under the doctrine of further inquiry.
- Is a female accused with minor children entitled to bail when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry?
- Does the death of a co-accused in judicial custody constitute a ground for granting bail to the remaining accused?
- When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' in the context of a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner Mst. Nishat Shaheen has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.643 of 2004 dated 23-8- 2004 registered under sections 302/380/411/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, New Multan.
2. Briefly the facts as per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 22-8-2004 Altaf Pervaiz deceased was found lying dead in his residence and he was reportedly murdered by some unknown persons. But during the course of investigation one Naeem-ul-Ghani the former husband of petitioner along with petitioner were implicated and they were arrested on 4-9-2004.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no connecting evidence is available against the petitioner and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. That role was attributed to Naeem-ul-Ghani, who died in judicial lockup on 7-2-2005. That no sufficient material is available on the record prima facie to connect the petitioner with the case and case of the petitioner is claimed to be of further inquiry. Further submitted that petitioner being lady having minor children is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that identification parade was conducted on 11-9-2004 wherein Muhammad Shafi and Qamar Shehzad had correctly identified Naeem-ul-Ghani and the petitioner as there was allegation that they were seen going out of the office where murder of Ch. Altaf Pervaiz deceased took place. Further submits that challan was sent up in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 8-10-2004 but trial has not commenced so far.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The role was attributed during investigation to Naeem-ul-Ghani, who has expired in jail and the present petitioner had already been divorced by Naeem-ul-Ghani so he had no plausible reason to accompany the petitioner. Furthermore, petitioner is a lady having minor children and no purpose will be served to put her in lock-up for an indefinite period . In these circumstances petitioner's case is ' of further inquiry therefore, she is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, this observation shall not affect the merits of case which shall be decided in accordance with law.