Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, Etc. vs The State And Another
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 381 and 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of theft of gold ornaments and savings certificates by domestic servants. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the delayed supplementary statement, lack of identification parade, and absence of recovery of the alleged stolen items. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, holding that the unexplained variance between the initial FIR and the supplementary statement, the absence of an identification parade, and the lack of recovery from the petitioners made their guilt a matter requiring further inquiry under the statutory provisions for bail. Furthermore, the court noted the statutory leniency and consideration applicable given that the petitioners are women. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed, names are introduced via a supplementary statement at variance with the initial report, no identification parade is held, and no recovery of stolen property is effected from female accused, their case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the introduction of names through a belated supplementary statement that varies from the initial FIR warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the absence of an identification parade and non-recovery of stolen property from the accused entitles them to post-arrest bail?
- Are female accused entitled to special consideration regarding the grant of bail when their guilt requires further inquiry?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J. - Petitioners seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 151/09 under Sections 381/395, P.P.C, at Police Station Defence-B, Lahore wherein it is alleged by the complainant that three women marks of identity of whom were mentioned in the F.I.R, came to their house to serve as domestic servants and after three days they left the house by committing theft of gold ornaments weighing 25 tolas and defence savings certificates valuing Rs. 55,000/-. None was named in the F.I.R. However, after almost seven months i.e. On 5.10.2009, he got record supplementary statement wherein he named the petitioners and two others as accused.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks bail on the ground that the petitioners are innocent; that there is no evidence to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence; that they are women and are behind the bars for the last more than six months,
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor General opposed the petition by submitting that in the supplementary statement of petitioners were specifically named and during investigation, petitioners led to the recovery of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- because the petitioners had already sold the gold ornaments.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State and have gone through the record with their assistance.
5. Admittedly none was named as accused in the F.I.R, and at no stage no identification parade was held to connect the petitioners with the F.I.R, It is further not denied that none of the items mentioned in the F.I.R, were recovered from the petitioners, It is further not denied by the learned Law Officer that the story given in the supplementary statement by the complainant at variance with the initial story given in the F.I.R, In the afore-referred circumstances the question of petitioners guilt would require further inquiry. Even otherwise petitioners' are women. That being so, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioners furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, they shall be released on bail.