RAZIA BIBI alias KAINAT vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of post-arrest bail sought by Mst. Razia Bibi alias Kainat, who stood accused in F.I.R. No. 298 dated 22-7-2008 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Hafizabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry regarding last-seen evidence and under the statutory mandate for women accused detained beyond six months without trial conclusion. The Lahore High Court held that the last-seen evidence stood weakened as co-accused were declared innocent during investigation, rendering the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner satisfied the mandatory statutory period under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, having been detained for over six months without trial conclusion or any delay attributable to her. The petition was consequently allowed and post-arrest bail granted.
- Whether a woman accused is entitled to statutory bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after being detained for a continuous period of six months without conclusion of trial?
- Does the exoneration of co-accused during investigation based on last-seen evidence make the case of the remaining accused one of further inquiry?
- Can bail be refused to a woman accused under the fourth proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in trial is not occasioned by her own acts or omissions?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, Mst, Razia Bibi alias Kainat daughter of Inayat, the petitioner along with others, namely, Chaman, Tahir and two unknown persons stands involved in case F.I.R. No 298, dated 22-7-2008, registered with Police Station Saddar Hafizabad for offences under sections 302, 148, 149, P. P.0 .
2. Precisely the prosecution story as it unfolded in the F.I.R., registered at the instance of Muhammad Hanif son of Khan Muhammad, brother of Altaf Hussain alias Khizar deceased was that on the previous night at 11-00 p.m., he along with his brother Altaf Hussain alias Khizer and Liaqat Ali son of Murad was sitting at the Dera of Imran, when two persons, namely, Chaman and Tahir reached there on a motorcycle and asked Altaf Hussain to accompany them as the petitioner has invited him on a feast, whereupon Altaf Hussain went away with them; on the next morning, when Altaf Hussain did not return home, he along with Liaqat Ali started searching him, during the course of which Latif Hussain and Muhammad Hussain P. Ws. Apprised them that on the previous night at 11-30 p.m. They had seen Altaf Hussain in the company of the petitioners, Chaman, Tahir and two unknown persons at Madhrianwala Chowk, on three motorcycles; about 12-00 noon, they found dead body of Altaf Hussain lying in the canal of Kot Nawan.
' Motive behind the occurrence was that there was some intimacy between the petitioner and Altaf Hussain and due to some differences, the petitioner issued him threats of dire consequences.
According to the complainant, he has firm belief that all the aforesaid accused in consultation with each other had committed murder of his brother Altaf Hussain.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General Punjab for the State and going through the record, it has been observed that the only evidence against the petitioner is that of last-seen, which has been disbelieved during the course of investigation qua Chaman and Tahir, her co-accused, against whom the allegation was of taking the deceased to the house of the petitioner and they have been declared innocent by the Police. This fact makes the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. Investigation has already been completed, so she cannot be allowed to remain under incarceration for an indefinite period.
Fourth proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Was brought through Ordinance No,XIII of 2006, which was promulgated on 7-7-2006, according to which woman accused shall be released on bail, if she has been detained for a continuous period of six months and whose trial for such offence has not been concluded, unless the Court is of the opinion that the delay in the trial of the accused has been occasioned by an act or omission of the woman accused. In the present case, charge was framed on 10-2-2009 and out of twelve prosecution witnesses only two formal witnesses have been examined on 27-3-2009. No delay is attributed to the petitioner. She is in custody since 7-8-2008.
Statutory period of six months has already been elapsed, hence, her case also falls under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) Cr . P.C.
4. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.