Mst. SIASAT BIBI vs THE STATE
Mst. Siasat Bibi filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in Crime Report No. 332 dated 26-8-2002, registered under sections 148, 302, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, Raiwind. The allegation against the petitioner was that she delivered a rifle to a co-accused, Iftikhar, who fired a fatal shot at the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of delay in conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that no case for bail was made out, as the trial was nearing its conclusion, statements of material prosecution witnesses had been recorded implicating the petitioner, and the offense was punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that delay alone does not warrant bail when the trial is near completion in heinous offenses and direct incriminating evidence exists.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground of delay in trial when the proceedings are near conclusion?
- Does the active facilitation of a murder by handing over a weapon disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is entitled to bail when eye-witnesses implicate her?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Mst. Siasat Bibi seeks post-arrest bail in Crime Repdrt No.332 dated 26-8-2002 under sections 148/302/149 P.P.C., registered with Police Station Sadar, Raiwind at the instance of Abdul Aziz.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that she delivered rifle to Iftikhar who made a shot with the same at the deceased, which hit back of his chest who yielded to injuries at the spot. After thorough investigation into the crime, she was found linked with the commission of crime in question.
3. It has been vigorously argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 13 months and so far trial Court has recorded statements of two witnesses. A direction was issued by this Court to the trial Court an 11-7-2003 to conclude the trial proceedings within three months and the same has not been complied with stricto senso.
4. As against this learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that evidence of four potential witnesses has been taken down by the trial Court and trial is likely to be concluded soon and now the case is fixed for 3-11-2003 for recording of remaining prosecution evidence. Adds that Khubaib who appeared as P.W.3 and Sumera P.W.4 happen to be son and daughter of Muhammad Ali deceased and petitioner is their maternal aunt. These witnesses had no earthly reason to furnish false voucher against her and for that reason she is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides at some length and am of the considered view that no case for bail is made out because the evidence of four material witnesses has already been recorded by the trial Court and now the case is fixed for 3-11-2003 for recording of remaining prosecution evidence. Trial proceedings are hearing end and evidence, of witnesses links her with the accusations brought against her. The offences is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no rebuttal of allegations so far that she delivered a rifle to Iftikhar who made a fatal shot at the deceased. This petition is dismissed.