NASIM AKHTAR vs STATE
Through this criminal petition, the petitioner Mst. Nasim Akhtar sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 109 registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Tanda, District Gujrat. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering the three-year delay in lodging the FIR, the unwitnessed nature of the alleged murder, the retracted extra-judicial confession allegedly obtained under torture, the inconclusive post-mortem report regarding the cause of death, and her status as a woman under the statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner and that her status as a female accused attracted the beneficial concession under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that female accused persons are entitled to the concession of bail irrespective of the gravity of the alleged offenses, and that where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence requiring further inquiry, continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose.
- Whether a female accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 irrespective of the gravity of the offense?
- Does a delayed FIR and an inconclusive post-mortem report regarding the cause of death make a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an extra-judicial confession allegedly made after the application of torture by the complainant be relied upon to deny post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Mst. Nasim Akhtar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 109 registered at Police Station Tanda, District Gujrat on 23.7.2003 for offences under Sections 302/201, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the FIR in this case had been lodged with a delay of about three years and admittedly the alleged murder in question had remained unwitnessed. According to the FIR the petitioner had confessed her guilt before the complainant but such confession had admittedly been made by the petitioner after application of torture upon her by the complainant. It is not disputed that the doctor conducting postmortem examination of the deadbody of the deceased had remained unable to ascertain the cause of her death and it is not denied that the skeleton recovered in this case had been recovered at the pointing out of Saifullah co-accused and not at the instance of the petitioner. Even according to the FIR itself the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased and her role in the alleged murder was merely secondary in nature to that attributed to Saifullah co-accused. The petitioner is a woman and the provisions of the first proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. envisage a concession in the matter of bail for female accused persons irrespective of the gravity of the offences allegedly committed by them. The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into her guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. besides attracting the provisions of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.