Mst. NAJMA BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Najma Bibi, who was accused of murdering her husband in a case registered under sections 302 and 23 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident, the lack of direct evidence, and the statutory provisions regarding women in custody. The petitioner argued that she was not named in the initial F.I.R., that there were three contradictory versions of the incident, and that the alleged recovery of the weapon was planted. The State conceded that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that as a woman who had been incarcerated for approximately nine months without trial, her case fell under the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that where a case involves conflicting versions and lacks direct evidence, it constitutes a case of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does a case involving three conflicting versions of an occurrence constitute a case of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a female accused who has been in judicial custody for nine months without trial entitled to the concession of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 23, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Mst. Najma Bibi, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R.
No,22, dated 9-2-2007, offences under sections 302, 23, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Kassoke, District Hafizabad for the allegations of committing the murder of her husband Rafaqat Ali (deceased), hence, this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. And was involved in this case by the complainant on the basis of supplementary statement. In fact, this is a case of three versions; first version was recorded by the complainant Gulzar, brother of the deceased and thereafter he changed his version and involved the petitioner and his two daughters. Thereafter, Azmat Ali, Bahnoee of the deceased and Mst. Zahra Batool, daughter of the deceased, filed separate complaints by nominating the complainant of F.I.R. To be the accused of alleged occurrence. Further states that according to the three versions, it was an unseen occurrence and there is no direct evidence. Against the petitioner to connect her with the alleged offence. The extra-judicial confession of the petitioner before the P.Ws. On 20-3-2007, after delay of one month and twelve days looses its veracity. Furthermore, the recovery of Sota allegedly recovered from the petitioner, was planted on 26-4-2007, after 2-1/2 months of the occurrence, which creates aspersion on the prosecution case. Also states that, the petitioner is behind the bars since 26-4-2007 without trial, therefore, her case falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. As the petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last about nine months, thus, she is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State opposed this bail petition by arguing that, the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence; the petitioner has been declared guilty of the offence; recovery has been effected from his possession. On Court's query, whether the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He candidly concedes this proposition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner, being woman, her case falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. As she is behind the bars for the last about nine months. Even otherwise, it is a case of three versions and all this makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry under section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NAJMA BIBI vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 1674