Mst. MUMTAZ BIBI and others vs THE STATE and another
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 381 and 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the theft of gold ornaments and Defence Savings Certificates from a house where they had worked as domestic servants. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the delayed supplementary statement naming them, the absence of an identification parade, the lack of recovery of the stolen items, and their gender. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case called for further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt due to the variance between the initial F.I.R. and the supplementary statement, the lack of identification parade, and the absence of recovery of the alleged stolen property, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are women. The Court laid down the principle that where material discrepancies exist, no identification parade is held, and no stolen items are recovered from the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail, particularly to female accused.
- Whether the delay and variance in a supplementary statement vis-a-vis the initial F.I.R. make a case one of further inquiry?
- Does the absence of an identification parade and non-recovery of stolen items entitle accused persons to post-arrest bail?
- Are women accused entitled to preferential consideration for bail under the statutory exceptions?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 151 of 2009 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 recorded 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 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.
Cited by 3 cases
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627
- Mrs, GHAZALA PARVEEN vs SADIQ DANIELand 18 others 2012 YLR 1651
- Mrs. Ghazala Parveen vs Sadiq Daniel & others