Mst. Sahibzadi vs The State And Another
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed before the Lahore High Court on behalf of Mst. Sahibzadi, an accused woman facing trial under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly serving poisoned food to the deceased. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused woman is entitled to statutory bail under the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 owing to the statutory period of detention without conclusion of trial, coupled with further inquiry into her guilt. The court held that since the co-accused who allegedly supplied the poison was declared innocent during investigation, there was a lack of direct eyewitnesses to the mixing of poison, and the petitioner had been detained for over six months without trial conclusion through no fault of her own, she qualified for bail. The key principle laid down is that a female accused facing a non-bailable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life must be granted statutory bail under Section 497(1) Fourth Proviso, Cr.P.C. if detained continuously for over six months without trial finalization, provided the delay is not attributable to her.
- Is a woman accused of an offence punishable with death entitled to bail after a continuous detention of six months if the trial has not concluded?
- Whether the declaration of innocence of a co-accused during investigation provides grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the remaining accused for the purpose of bail?
- Does the absence of eyewitnesses to the mixing of poison in food constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J. - The instant post-arrest bail petition has been filed on behalf of Mst.
Sahibzadi, who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 699/2009, dated 2.11.2009, registered in Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang, under Sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the allegation against the present petitioner levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. Is that on 2.11.2009, Mst. Sahibzadi (present petitioner) served food to -his son, namely, Noor Sultan, who died immediately thereafter. The complainant contended that the present petitioner had.
Developed illicit relationship with one Zafar, who provided her poisonous material, which she mixed with the food, which caused the death of Noor Sultan/
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant as her brother is married to the daughter of the complainant and the relation between them are strained. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the co-accused/Zafar, who allegedly provided the poisonous substance to the present petitioner, has already been declared innocent. He maintained that there Is no proof that the poison, which has been detected from the sample, sept to the Chemical Examiner was actually mixed by the present petitioner in food. He alleged that Noor Sultan (deceased) himself took the poisonous material. He maintained that the present petitioner is entitled to be released on to the fourth proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., which envisaged the release of a woman accused of commission of an offence, punishable with death, who has been detained for a continuous period of six., months and whose trial for such offence has not been concluded.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposed the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And there is no chance of his false implication. He further submitted that according to the report of Chemical Examiner, insecticide belonging to organo phosphorous group bas been detected from the viscera of the deceased sent for examination. He further submitted that the punishment of the offence, alleged to have been committed by the present petitioner, falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A perusal of the F.I.R. Has revealed that poisonous material was allegedly provided to the present petitioner by the co-accused, namely, Zafar. The said co- accused/Zafar has been declared innocent during the investigation. Secondly, prima facie, there is no witness, who had seen the present petitioner putting the poisonous material in the food, which was served to Noor Sultan by the said petitioner prior to his death. Hence, there are sufficient grounds to enquire further into the guilt of the present petitioner. Finally, according to the fourth proviso of subsection (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C., a woman accused of an offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall be released on bail, in case, 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 accused or any other person acting on her behalf. In the instant case, the present petitioner is behind the bars since 4.11.2009 and her first bail petition was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, vide order dated 3.3.2010. Hence, the present petitioner is behind the bars for a continuous period of more than six months and the trial against her has not been concluded so far. Prima facie, the delay in the conclusion of the trial has not been occasioned by any act of omission on the part of the present petitioner or any other person acting on her behalf.
7. In view of above, the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Consequently, the instant post-arrest bail petition, filed on behalf of Mst. Sahibzadi, is accepted and she is admitted to bail subject to submission of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.