Mst. FARZANA YASMIN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a husband and wife accused of murder under sections 302/337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, finding that the case against them required further inquiry. The Court noted a significant, unexplained six-month delay in the registration of the First Information Report (F.I.R.), which cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, the Court observed that the medical evidence regarding the cause of death—poisoning by a tranquilizer—required trial determination to establish the petitioners' specific responsibility. The Court also highlighted that co-accused with similar roles had been found innocent during the police investigation. Furthermore, the Court considered the humanitarian ground that the female petitioner was incarcerated with a suckling baby and a minor child. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that unexplained delays in F.I.R. registration and inconsistencies in the prosecution's story justify further inquiry, warranting bail.
- Does an unexplained six-month delay in registering an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when co-accused with similar roles have been found innocent during police investigation?
- Is the presence of a suckling baby a relevant factor for the court to consider when granting bail to a female accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-J, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.---Both wife and husband, Mst. Farzana Yasmin and Sajjad Masood Alvi, the petitioners, have approached this court for their post arrest bail against their involvement in criminal case F.I.R. No,94, dated 20-3-2008 registered under sections 302/33'7-J, P.P.C. At police: station Garjakh District, Gujranwala. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioners is that on the day of occurrence, they along with co-accused, murdered Mst. Azra Parveen, sister of Muhammad Arif, the complainant, by administering poison.
2. The learned Law Officer has resisted this bail petition.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Bare perusal of the record reveals that the F.I.R. Was got registered after a delay of six months, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. However, an effort has been made to explain the same in the F.I.R., which appears to be not weighty. The complainant, who is brother of Mst. Azra Parveen, was statedly present in the side room, when he had over-heard the conversation of the petitioners with Rana Muhammad Mushtaq (since died), brother-in-law of the complainant about the alleged conspiracy being hatched to murder the said deceased woman but amazingly no action, whatsoever, neither on his part nor by Mst. Azra Parveen (deceased) regarding the alleged conspiracy was taken. Therefore, the story of telephonic call received from Rana Muhammad Mushtaq, who was at Karachi on 2-11-2007, to get the criminal case lodged after six months does not impress in any manner: Even if that is taken into consideration at this stage, it would appear that this information was given to him on 2-11-2007 by the deceased Rana Muhammad Mushtaq, who could in the meanwhile also move the local police for registration of case and the complainant had to take six months to make a move in this regard which remains to be explained too.
5. As regards the .Report of the Chemical Examiner read with the opinion furnished by Dr. Shamaila Rasheed, it was tranquillizer belonging to "Benzodiazepine group" that was detected in the articles sent for the Chemical Examination. This substance when taken beyond the quantity prescribed by the doctor may prove fatal as opined by her. So, therefore, after evidence at the trial, the quality of the said substance consumed and the manner/circumstances in which, the deceased took it herself or was forced to take it, shall be determined to make the petitioners responsible. Further, the story of overhearing about the plan allegedly being made in the other room, makes the whole case doubtful, benefit of B which must go to the petitioners even at bail stage specially when the co- accused have also been found; innocent during the police investigation despite, having similar role that has been assigned to the present petitioners.
6. So, therefore, the, cumulative effect of the above given circumstances squarely makes it a case of further enquiry besides the fact that petitioner No,1 is confined in the jail since 22-6-2008 having a suckling baby aged 1-1/2 year and, a minor girl of four years confined with her. Therefore, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.