Mst. PERVEEN vs STATE and another
Mst. Perveen filed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking anticipatory pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 109 dated 29.03.2012 registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tulaniba, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the last-seen evidence, the police conclusion regarding conspiracy rather than direct execution, and allegations of mala fide and familial dispute. The Lahore High Court held that the extrajudicial confession of co-accused could not be read against the petitioner, that the implication appeared to stem from mala fide due to disputes with the step-mother, and that the petitioner as a female risked unjustified humiliation and harassment. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that extrajudicial confessions of co-accused cannot be used against another accused, and pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where mala fide and familial enmeshment are apparent, particularly regarding female accused.
- Can an extrajudicial confession made by a co-accused be read against another accused for the purpose of bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the case against the accused appears to be based on the mala fide of the complainant?
- Is a female petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail to prevent unjustified humiliation and harassment when police investigation points to conspiracy rather than direct participation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Mst. Perveen, petitioner through the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeks her anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR No, 109 dated 29.03.2012, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 PPC with Police Station Tulaniba Tehsil Mian Channu District Khanewal.
2. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that she was seen in the company of Umar Hayat, Muhammad Waseem, Muhammad Nadeem and Mst. Rani Bibi taking the deceased Adnan with them whereafter the dead body of the deceased was found.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except this last seen evidence there is nothing on the file to implicate the petitioner for the charge of murder. It is further argued that during investigations police reached at the conclusion that the petitioners had only participated in hatching conspiracy of murder of Adnan and she was not present at the time as alleged in the FIR.
It is further argued that the petitioner is real sister of Mst. Rani Bibi, step-mother of the complainant with whom the complainant had ill-will whereas co-accused Waseem is brother while Nadeem is her husband. According to the learned counsel, the complainant has thrown a wide net to enrope all the family members of the petitioner in the instant case. He prays for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR in whose company the deceased was seen lastly; that the co-accused of the petitioner made extrajudicial confession admitting the murder of Adnan, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Undoubtedly, the extrajudicial confession if made by the co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner and cannot be treated as sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with murder of deceased Adnan. It is mentioned in the FIR that the complainant of the case had some dispute with his step-mother Mst. Rani Bibi, thus, there is every likelihood that the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case due to her relation with her co-accused. Further, the police did not implicate the petitioner for the murder of Adnan rather it is the conclusion of the police that the petitioner had participated in hatching conspiracy for the murder. In this view of the matter, the case against the petitioner appears to be based upon the mala fide of the complainant of the case. The petitioner being female would be humiliated and harassed if she is sent behind the bars.
7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner Mst. Perveen vide order dated 21.05.2012, is confirmed subject to her furnishing bail- bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (Rupees One hundred thousand only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.