Mst. SAJIDA BIBI vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Sajida Bibi, who was accused of facilitating a dacoity at a bank under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner provided logistical support to the perpetrators, based on witness statements regarding suspicious visitors at her residence and a supplementary statement leading to a recovery of money and a cell phone. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence against her and her status as a woman. The Court held that the prosecution's case relied on inadmissible evidence, specifically the statement of a co-accused while in custody, and that the witness statements were insufficient to establish her active privity to the crime at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that a woman with no prior criminal record is preferentially entitled to the concession of bail when the prosecution's case requires further evidentiary proof to establish active involvement.
- Is the statement of a co-accused while in police custody admissible evidence against another accused for the purpose of bail?
- Does the lack of a prior criminal record entitle a female accused to preferential consideration for bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case against the accused relies on evidence that requires full trial scrutiny?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Mst. Sajida Bibi, petitioner herein, seeks admission to post arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No, 165 dated 20.3.2016 under Section 395, 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with Police Station City Khanewal on the complaint of Syed Haider Masood, Manager Mizan Bank Ltd. Khanewal; she is accused of having facilitates six accused who committed dacoity on 19-3-2016 at about 9:40 a.m.
In the bank and took away a sum of Rs, 1,61,29,712/- along with cell phone handsets and weapons carried by the bank guard; they also earned with them CCTV camera as well as its DVR: they were subsequently arrested and identified by the staffers during a test identification parade. During the course of investigation, police recorded statements of two witnesses from petitioner's neighbourhood they disclosed visit of some suspects at her residence; in this backdrop, she was arrayed as an accused on the basis of a supplementary statement and led to the . Recovery of Rs, 61,000/-, according to the police, remainder of Rs, 100,000/- paid to her by the culprits for her services along with a cell phone handset on 19-4-2016.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Be that as it may, the case against the petitioner is hinged upon statement of two witnesses; as per their version, some dubious visitors frequented her house, however, none from amongst the accused who committed dacoity was ever confronted to the said witnesses; statement of a co- accused while being in custody is another circumstance being relied upon by the prosecution, otherwise inadmissible in evidence. In this backdrop, whether the petitioner was an active privy to the crime or had provided any logistical support or other assistance/information to the accused in the crime is an issue that can be best resolved after recording of evidence; she being a woman with no past to her discredit is otherwise is preferentially entitled to the concession of bail. Even otherwise, her continuous detention is serving no useful purpose for the present. Consequently, Crl.
Misc. No, 5842-B of 2016 is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on her furnishing bond in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.