Mst. NASIM BIBI vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an F.I.R. registered under sections 496-A and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that the petitioner enticed away the complainant's wife and sister and stole money. The petitioner contended she was falsely implicated due to her relationship with a co-accused, noting that the alleged abductees did not support the prosecution's version in their statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances and the statutory provisions favoring women in custody matters. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail, the alleged abductees' statements contradicted the F.I.R., and the complainant demonstrated mala fide intent. The Court affirmed the principle that under the second proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a woman is entitled to favorable consideration for bail unless exceptional circumstances exist, particularly when the investigation is complete and no recovery is pending.
- Is a woman entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in pre-arrest bail matters?
- Does the failure of alleged abductees to support the prosecution's version in statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute valid grounds for granting bail?
- Can the mala fide intent of a complainant in registering an F.I.R. justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for an accused?
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition the petitioner Mst. Nasim Bibi daughter of Khan Muhammad seeks pre-arrest bail in case F. I .R. No,235 of 2009 dated 31-7-2009 registered under sections 496-A/ 380, P.P.C. With Police Station, Saddar Multan.
2. Earlier the petitioner applied for the pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge Multan on 17-10-2009, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 31-10-2009.
3. Briefly the prosecution story according to the F.I.R. Is that on 26-7-2009 the complainant was away from his house and in the absence of the complainant the petitioner along with co-accused came to his house and enticed away his wife Mst. Samina and sister Fozia. The accused also took away net amount of Rs.70,000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is falsely involved in this case.
She is innocent and F.I.R. Has been lodged after unexplained delay of five days. The petitioner has been implicated due to her relationship with the main accused Ramzan. Learned counsel further contended that wife of the complainant has left the house of the complainant on her own and filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against him. The copy of the plaint for dissolution of marriage is placed on the file. The alleged abductees Mst. Samina and Fozia in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Have not supported the version of the complaint. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The investigation is complete. It will not serve any useful purpose if the petitioner is sent to jail. The petitioner being a woman her case is also covered under proviso 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
The co-accused Muhammad Iqbal was allowed post-arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25-8-2009.
5. On the other hand learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complaint vehemently opposed the bail petition by submitting that petitioner Mst.Nasim Bibi is fully involved in enticing away wife of the complainant Mst. Samina and sister Mst. Fozia. Further contended that although petitioner is a woman and her name is mentioned in the F.I.R, with specific allegation. Further submitted that in fact she is the main culprit who motivated the co-accused to commit the offence.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The co-accused Muhammad Iqbal has been allowed bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate in this case. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Being a woman the case of the petitioner also falls under proviso 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C. And no useful purpose would be served if petitioner is sent behind the bars. If she is guilty after recording of evidence and conclusion of trial she will be convicted. The petitioner Mst. Nasim Bibi filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against Muhammad Ramzan which was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree, dated 6-6-2008 against Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji Karim Bakhsh. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is involved on account of her relationship with Ramzan son of Karim Bakhsh is established from the filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage. She was married with Ramzan son of Karim Bakhsh who is also one of the co-accused. It also established that Muzaffar Abbas complainant has made his best efforts to involve maximum persons, namely, Aamer, Ramzan, Iqbal and petitioner Mst. Nasim Bibi in this case. The alleged abductees in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Have not supported the prosecution story. The petitioner's co- accused; the father of the alleged abductee Mst. Fozia had already got registered F.I.R. For the abduction of her daughter which was declared false which establishes the mala fide of the complainant. The petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record-holder.
8. In the light of above discussion ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner is hereby confirmed.