SAMINA IRAM vs The STATE and others
This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the female petitioner, who was attributed a lalkara, declared a proclaimed offender, and whose husband was abroad, is entitled to pre-arrest bail keeping in view her gender, the role attributed, and the fact that the principal accused had already been convicted. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail as she caused no injury, was a woman with an infant falling under the statutory exceptions, and her abscondence was reasonably explained. The key principle laid down is that feminity, lack of active injury attribution, and a reasonable explanation for abscondence, alongside the conviction of the main accused, can constitute exceptional grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to a female accused attributed a lalkara when the principal accused has already been convicted?
- Does reasonable explanation of abscondence disentitle an accused from claiming bail?
- Can feminity and the status of being a nursing mother be considered as exceptional grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---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, P.P.C. At Police Station City Hafizabad on the written complaint of Muhammad Javaid that petitioner along with his co- accused Mumtaz alias Bukhari Shalt (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 nonappearance 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 A extend the relief of bail. She is prepared to surrender her passport to the learned trial court till the decision of case. Feminity 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.
Pre-arrest .