Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR vs STATE & another
The petitioner, Mst. Naseem Akhtar, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 297/2015, registered at Police Station Budhla Cantt, Multan, for offences under Sections 376, 371-A, 371-B, and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused abducted the complainant's daughter for the purpose of prostitution and misappropriated cash and gold ornaments. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of three months. Furthermore, the medical examination of the alleged victim showed no signs of violence. The Court noted that the petitioner is the ex-wife of the complainant and the mother of the alleged victim. Crucially, the Court found that co-accused persons had already been granted bail based on the statements of the complainant and the victim, which exonerated them. Given the petitioner's status as a woman and the fact that her case was on a better footing than the co-accused who were released, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed.
- Does an unexplained three-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a female accused entitled to bail when her case stands on a better footing than co-accused who have already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of violence marks on the alleged victim's body support a plea for further inquiry in an abduction case?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 371-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner Mst. Naseem Akhtar sought post arrest bail in case FIR No, 297 dated 5.11.2015, offence under Sections 376/371-A,B/496- A, PPC, registered at Police Station Budhla Cantt, District Multan.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that petitioner along with co-accused Mst. Ruoia Bibi with criminal intent to sell her for the purpose of prostitution and they also took away cash and gold ornaments with them.
3. Heard. Perused.
4. Record reveals that there is delay of about three months in lodging FIR without plausible explanation on the part of prosecution. Present petitioner is ex-wife of complainant and abductee is her real daughter. According to MLC of alleged abductee, no mark of violence was seen on any part of body. Co-accused of petitioner have been granted bail in the light of statements of complainant and alleged victim who were exonerated by them. Petitioner is behind the bars. She being woman, her case is on better footing than the case of her co-accused, having been granted bail. In the light of material collected and facts available on record, guilt of petitioner also needs further probe and her case calls for further inquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner be released on bail subject to furnishing, bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.