Mst. BASHIRAN BIBI vs STATE & another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 504 of 2008 registered under Sections 371-A, 371-B, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City A-Division, Rahimyar Khan, on the allegation of running a brothel house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given her absence from the spot, her implication based on a co-accused's statement, and her status as a 65-year-old woman. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not present at the spot, was implicated through an inadmissible statement of a co-accused, had no incriminating material recovered from her, and had already joined the investigation, her case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that pendency of other criminal cases is no bar to granting bail if the case is otherwise fit on merits, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is implicated on the statement of a co-accused?
- Does the pendency of other criminal cases operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail in a fit case?
- Whether an accused not present at the spot and whose case calls for further inquiry is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 504/2008 dated 27.9.2008 registered -ander Sections 371-A, 371-B and 109 of the PPC at Police Station City A-Division, Rahimyar Khan.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that she was running a brothel house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; fake and frivolous case was got registered against her; she has been implicated in this case on the statement of the co-accused which is not permissible in the eye of law and there is no evidence available that she was running any brothel house. The PWs cited in the FIR do not belong to the same locality and according to the contents. of the FIR, Sections 371-A and 371-B, PPC are not applicable to the extent of the petitioner. Further contends that she was not arrested at the spot, so involvement of the petitioner in this case with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out. She is an old aged lady of 65 years and in view of Section 497 Cr.P.C., she deserves concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG present in Court opposed this pre-arrest bail application. He stated that petitioner is nominated in the FIR and earlier she misused the concession of bail. Other criminal cases like such nature are also pending against her. However, he conceded that according to the contents of the FIR, above captioned Sections are not made out against the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard and record persued. Though petitioner is nominated in the FIR but it is admitted fact that she was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. The police implicated the petitioner in this criminal case on the statement of the co-accused which is not admissible in the eye of law. This is also admitted fact that during investigation, no incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the co-accused, so allegation levelled against the petitioner was not proved in investigation. It is also not possible that one old aged lady slipped away from the place of occurrence. Though criminal cases are pending against her, yet pendency of cases is no bar to grant bail to anyone if case becomes fit on merit and also becomes a case of further inquiry. Sub-Inspector present in Court stated that the petitioner joined the investigation and she is no more required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is present in the Court and seems to be an old lady. So she deserves concession of bail under Section 498 Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed, subject to her furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one ' surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.