Mst. MARIA KHAN vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal, converted into an appeal, arises from the refusal of the High Court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Mst. Maria Khan, who was implicated in a criminal case based on a supplementary statement involving an alleged extra-judicial confession made to two taxi drivers. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in denying bail based on conjecture regarding the involvement of women in heinous crimes by notorious gangs, and whether the recording of prosecution witness testimony constitutes an absolute bar to bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on conjectural considerations regarding the petitioner’s gender and alleged gang involvement was legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that the recording of prosecution evidence does not create an absolute rule against granting bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and enlarged the petitioner on bail, emphasizing that the liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed based on speculative assumptions rather than concrete evidence.
- Does the recording of prosecution witness testimony create an absolute bar to the grant of bail?
- Can a court deny bail based on conjectural considerations regarding the involvement of women in criminal gangs?
- Is an extra-judicial confession made to unrelated third parties sufficient grounds to deny bail?
ORDER
' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner Mst. Maria Khan was implicated in the case F.I.R. No,519 of 2012 on the basis of a supplementary statement which in turn was based on an extra judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before two taxi drivers namely Muhammad Nadeem and Wajid Ali. Upon being questioned, learned counsel states that these two persons are not related to the petitioner and according to the complainant the alleged statement was made by the petitioner before the aforesaid drivers at a taxi stand. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that the testimony of three prosecution witnesses namely the complainant and two taxi drivers, have been recorded in Court.
On this basis it is contended that bail should be declined to the petitioner. This is not a valid consideration in the circumstances of the present case nor is it an absolute rule that where evidence has been recorded, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail.
3. The learned Bench of the High Court has not taken into account the above circumstances of the case and has proceeded on the basis of conjecture while observing that "even otherwise it is of
(sic) common knowledge that now-a-days the notorious gangs involved in heinous offences deploy womenfolk to fulfill their nefarious designs". We may observe that where the liberty of a citizen is involved such conjectural considerations cannot be a basis for declining bail.
4. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed.
Cited by 9 cases
- Rooh-ul-Amin & another vs The State & another 2020 PHC 274
- ROOH-UL-AMIN Versus State 2021 YLRN 65
- NAZEER Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 85
- Rehmat Ullah etc. vs The State. 2015 LHC 4312
- Rehmat Ullah, etc vs The State 2015 LHC 4312, 2015 KLR Criminal Cases 322
- REHMAT ULLAH Versus State 2016 YLRN 108
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus State 2014 PCrLJ 1724
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs The STATE and others 2014 P Cr. L J 456
- RAHIM SHAHID Versus State 2013 YLR 2642