SAMINA IRAM vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR for murder and criminal conspiracy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with a weaning infant, was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail despite being declared a proclaimed offender and facing charges falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the principal accused had already been convicted, the petitioner had caused no injury to the deceased, and she had been found innocent in the initial investigation. Furthermore, the Court accepted her explanation for her previous absence and her offer to surrender her passport. The key principle laid down is that the status of a proclaimed offender does not automatically bar the grant of bail if the absence is reasonably explained, and that the circumstances of a weaning mother, combined with the lack of recovery required from her, constitute sufficient grounds to exercise judicial discretion in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.
- Does the status of a proclaimed offender automatically bar the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a woman with a weaning infant be granted bail in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is pre-arrest bail permissible when the petitioner has provided a reasonable explanation for their previous absence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her and others vide FIR No, 855 dated 22.11.2014, under Sections 302, 34, 109, PPC at Police Station City Hafizabad on the written complaint of Muhammad Javaid that petitioner along with his co-accused Mumtaz alias Bukhari Shah (since convict) committed the murder of Sikandar Hayat by a Criminal conspiracy of her husband Iftikhar Shah since (P.O abroad Dubai).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has allegedly been attributed a lalkara simplicitor, in the first phase of investigation; she was found innocent whereas the alleged motive mentioned in the FIR is not directly relatable to her while co-accused whom the death was attributed has already been convicted and sentenced to life servitude; nothing is required to be recovered from her and the proceedings of declaring her P.O are fabricated even this fact alone may not be considered a ground to decline the relief sought for as circumstances of the case make it out in her favour and being a weaning woman her case falls within the exceptions; it has further been explained that petitioner was abroad with her husband, therefore, her non- appearance before the Court was not willful and now she is ready to surrender her passport before the learned trial Court till the decision of case.
3. Learned D.P.G has opposed the submissions that petitioner is nominated in the FIR; incident took place in her house and the deceased came at the place of occurrence responding to a telephone call she accosted whereas co-accused (Khurram Mumtaz Bukhari) (convict) fired at the deceased to death. The petitioner was declared P.O by the learned trial Court and now by latest investigation has been found guilty and circumstances persuade that if she is allowed bail she may again elect to abscond.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the submissions that it is not a case of extra-ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail by any stretch of imagination and the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The principal accused (Khurram Mumtaz Bukhari) has met the faith being a life servitude. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased. She being weaning of her lapped infant gets her case in the exceptions of proviso (i) of under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Nothing is now required to be recovered from her. In the first phase of investigation she was found innocent whereas abscondance by itself, if is explained reasonably, which has been made in this case does not debar the Court to extend the relief of bail. She is prepared to surrender her passport to the learned trial Court till the decision of case. Felinity leads the Court to exercise its jurisdiction discretionally in favour of this fact provided circumstances permit. The Court has been persuaded by the facts and circumstances to accept this petition.
7. Resume of the above discussion is that a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of the petitioner, therefore, pre-arrest bail already granted to her is confirmed provided her submission of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. She is directed to surrender her passport to the trial Court till the decision of case.