HUMA AMJAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail respectively in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners, who are women implicated based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and delayed supplementary statements arising amidst civil property litigation, are entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of direct evidence, the delayed nature of the supplementary statements indicating mala fide due to prior civil disputes over property and bank dues, and the fact that both petitioners are female brought their cases within the scope of further inquiry and the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for one petitioner and granted post-arrest bail to the other, laying down principles regarding the scrutiny of circumstantial evidence, delayed supplementary statements, and the protective provisions for female accused in criminal matters.
- Whether the delay of several months in recording a supplementary statement implicating accused persons through circumstantial evidence warrants further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the existence of prior civil litigation and strained relations between the complainant and the accused establish mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Are female accused persons entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,8830/B of 2006 filed by Mst. Huma Amjad and Criminal Miscellaneous No,9053/B of 2006 filed by Mst. Azra Bibi seeking pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail respectively in case F.I.R. No,132 of 2006, dated 2-3-2006 for the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad.
2. Azra Bibi petitioner was arrested in this case on 12-9-2006 and her bail application was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order, dated 2-11-2006.
3. The said case was got registered by Syed Sajjad Haider son of Syed Anwar Hussain with regard to the murder of his brother Syed Amjad Ali Shah who was done to death on 2-3-2006 at about 7- 45 p.m. By some unknown persons when the deceased was going towards mosque to offer prayer.
This occurrence took place within the area of Haseeb Shaheed Colony, near Mian Chowk situated about one and half kilometer from Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad.
' During the investigation on 30-7-2006 a supplementary statement made by complainant was brought on record stating therein that he had come to know that Huma Amjad petitioner who is the wife of his deceased's brother had illicit relations with one Ehsan and that she in connivance with her other co-accused including Azra Bibi planned for the murder of Syed Amjad Ali Shah and paid Rupees five lacs to Mst. Azra for engaging a hire assassin and ultimately Syed Amjad Ali Shah was done to death on 2-3-2006 when he was proceedings to his prayers in the mosque.
' Record of this case reveals that another supplementary statement of the complainant was brought on record on 15-8-2006 stating therein that Mst. Azra Bibi petitioner had confessed before him that she (Mst. Azra Bibi) had friendly relations with Mst. Huma Amjad (petitioner) who was not happy with her husband because he was not sexually strong and because of that she (Huma Amjad) had developed illicit relations with one Ehsan and now she intend to remove Syed Amjad Ali Shah, her husband from the picture. Thereafter she (Azra Bibi petitioner) along with Hurna Amjad petitioner and other co-accused planned for the murder of Syed Amjad Ali Shah and Rupees five lacs were paid by Huma Amjad to her for doing the job. Statedly Azra Bibi petitioner also confessed that in furtherance of said conspiracy/planning on 25-2-2006 she paid Rupees five lacs along with photo of Syed Amjad Ali Shah to her co-accused namely Shehzad who promised to accomplish the mission. Thereafter, on 2-3-2006 Shehzad and Arshad being armed with .30 bore pistol while riding on a motorcycle waylaid Syed Amjad All Shah near his house and committed his murder. Allegedly the information about the presence of the deceased at the spot was conveyed to Azra petitioner by Huma Amjad petitioner on telephone.
' Record of this case further reveals that on 1-8-2006 statement of Murtaza Hussain nephew of the deceased under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was also brought on record indicating that in his presence Rupees five lacs were paid to Mst. Azra Bibi petitioner by Huma Amjad petitioner on 25-2-2006 but since he was asked by the ladies to keep quiet he did not disclose the same to anybody.
' Another piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the 'statements of Muhammad Iqbal and Amjad which were brought on record on 3-8-2006 stating therein that Mst. Azra Bibi petitioner used to give Taweez and they also used to visit her for the said purpose. Statedly, few days prior to the occurrence they had heard both the petitioners and their co-accused whispering behind the curtain about the commission of murder of Syed Amjad All Shah and that though they had come to know about the murder of Syed Amjad Ali Shah about 5/6 days after the occurrence but they did not disclose the said conspiracy to anybody and now their conscience has started pricking them, thus, they got recorded their statements on 3-6-2006 i.e. After five months of the occurrence.
4. The bare perusal of the above data available on record reveals that there is no direct evidence against both the petitioners to connect them with the commission of the offence and the entire case of prosecution against the petitioners is in the form of circumstantial evidence i.e. Extra- judicial confession of Azra Bibi petitioner and the, evidence of conspiracy by the petitioners and their co-accused.
' I have also observed that complainant of this case who is brother-in-law of Huma Amjad petitioner, prior to the registration of the case had filed three civil suits on behalf of the minor children of Huma Amjad petitioner (off-spring of petitioner's marriage with Syed Amjad Ali Shah deceased) i.e. Suit for declaration restraining Huma petitioner from selling the house of her deceased husband suit for declaration that Huma Amjad is entitled only for her share out of her husband property/money Rs,25,00,000 payable to the family of the deceased by Habib Bank Limited and the suit for permanent injunction restraining Habib Bank Limited where deceased was employed to release the dues of deceased in favour of Huma Amjad petitioner (widow of Syed Amjad Ali Shah deceased).
' I have observed that in the said civil suits the complainant never took the plea that Syed Amjad Ali Shah was murdered by his wife namely Huma Amjad (petitioner). The said litigation clearly show that the relations of the parties were strained and thus, the involvement of Huma Amjad petitioner in this criminal case after the lapse of about five months upon the supplementary statement of the complainant itself is sufficient to show the mala fide of the complainant party.
' Prima facie the said facts of the case are sufficient to open the doors of further inquiry qua the involvement of both the petitioners entitling them to the concession of bail. Both the petitioners are female and their case is also covered under 1st proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both these petitions (Criminal Miscellaneous No,8830/B of 2006 and Criminal Miscellaneous 9053/B of 2006) are allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to Huma Amjad vide order, dated 1-11-2006 stands confirmed against the same surety. Similarly, Mst. Azra Bibi petitioner is admitted to bail subject to her furnishing bails bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.