SHAKEELA BIBI vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mst. Shakeela Bibi, who was accused in an FIR for the alleged abduction and murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of incriminating evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the prosecution's case rested entirely on suspicion, as the Investigating Officer failed to collect any substantial evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, noting that the call data record (CDR) did not establish ownership of the phone number in question. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the complainant's inconsistent supplementary statements and the lack of progress in the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that mere suspicion or naming an accused in an FIR without corroborative evidence does not preclude the grant of bail, and that a female accused is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the mere naming of an accused in an FIR based on suspicion constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
- Is a female accused entitled to special consideration under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation has failed to produce incriminating evidence beyond mere suspicion after a significant passage of time?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mst. Isma Bibi (complainant) has alleged in case-FIR No, 265/13, dated 01.07.2013, under section 365, P.P.C., Police Station Manga Mandi, Lahore that her son Javed Iqbal, aged 32, used to drive a wagon; he was present at a hotel, situated at transport-terminal of Manga Mandi (Lahore) at about 1:45 p.m. On 22.06.2013, when he received a phone-call from Cell No,0331- 4103903, whereon he left the hotel and went to some unknown place; he did not return thereafter nor any clue as to his whereabouts was available; she showed strong suspicion that her son had been abducted and murdered by Mst.Shakeela Bibi (petitioner) as she had made last phone-call to him on 22.06.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the accused/petitioner as it merely revolved around a suspicion of the complainant against her; the petitioner's involvement in this case due to malice and some hidden motives of the complainant may not be an outright improbability; there exist many a reasons to believe that the petitioner's case calls for further probe into her guilt, therefore, she may be saved from the lurking danger of being arrested by the police on a baseless charge and granted the relief prayed for.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has opposed this application with the contention that the offence against the petitioner entails capital punishment, so she may not be granted the extra ordinary relief of bail before arrest.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the Investigating Officer has not collected any incriminating evidence against the accused-petitioner up-till-now, except for a call-data-record (CDR), which revealed that a couple of phone calls had been made from the above noted cell number to Javed Iqbal, the abductee. The C.D.R. Did not, however show, if it belonged to the cell phone of the accused/petitioner. The complainant-lady has categorically alleged in the FIR that her son went missing, after he A received a phone-call in the room of a hotel. In such a situation, how could it be known by the complainant that her son, who was not traceable since then, had received any call from the above noted cell phone. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab appears to be in a fix as to the said conundrum, for, call-data- record had been brought on the record by the police after registration of the FIR. The record does not show it either, if a seizure memo about the CDR had been prepared by the I.O.
5. The complainant lady rendered a supplementary statement in this case on 20.11.2015, whereby, she raised a suspicion against a couple of other persons as well, including Mst. Bushra Bibi, real sister of the petitioner and Muhammad Akmal, besides another girl, who wore a nasal-ring. The Investigating Officer has virtually done nothing in this case, so, it has not traversed beyond the stage' of mere suspicion of the complainant. A youthful son of the complainant went missing on 22.06.2013 and the Investigating Officer appears to be enjoying a sound sleep, which is unfortunate.
The petitioner's involvement in this case is altogether a skeptical circumstance, which after years' investigation remains a blemished speculation .Of the complainant and that's all. Mere mentioning of name of a person as an accused in the FIR, that too as a suspect; would hardly mean anything, perilous to his bail-plea. The petitioner's case calls for further probe into her guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Besides, being a female her case is covered by the 1st proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. For the discussion supra, this application is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2016 is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
7. Before parting with this order, it is directed that the petitioner-lady shall keep joining the investigation as and when required by the. I.O. If she hesitates in doing so, the law shall have its own course.