Jalal Ahmad @ Papi vs State etc
This matter concerns two consolidated petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Jalal Ahmad and Sajida Mai, who are accused in an FIR registered for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations of setting the deceased on fire. The Court held that the petitions were devoid of merit and dismissed them, recalling the previously granted ad-interim bail. The Court reasoned that the prosecution established a prima facie case through ocular accounts supported by the post-mortem report and statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the investigating agency. The Court reaffirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted based on bald denials or parallel stories, and clarified that female accused cannot claim pre-arrest bail solely on the basis of gender when reasonable grounds exist to connect them to a heinous crime.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to a female accused solely on the basis of her gender in a murder case?
- Does the existence of a prima facie case supported by ocular evidence and a post-mortem report preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail maintainable when the defense relies solely on bald denials and parallel stories without demonstrating mala fide?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This single consolidated order shall dispose be two petitions; first petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8135-B. of 2020 filed by Jalal Ahmad @ Papi (petitioner/accused) and second petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8134-B of 2020 filed by Sajida Mai @ Saeedi (petitioner/ accused), for grant of pre-arrest bail as both the aforementioned petitions have been filed in the case arisen out of one and same F.I.R. No. 836/2020 dated 1.11.2020 registered in under Sections 302, 34, PPC at Police Station, City Jalalpur Pirwala District Multan.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the availabl e record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that both the petitioners i.e. Jalal Ahmad @ Papi and Sajida Mai @ Saeedi are nominated in the FIR with the, specific allegation that they sprinkled oil/diesel on Mst. Shamshad Mai and then set her on fire; she died during treatment in Burn Unit of Nishtar Hospital Multan. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of police official, present in Court, and after himself going through the record apprises that witnesses (mentioned in the FIR) have supported the aforementioned allegation levelled against the petitioners through their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the police; further apprises that aforementioned allegation levelled again st the petitioners has been duly established during investigation. Ocular account furnished by the prosecution in the FIR is supported by the post- mortem report of the deceased. Therefore, prima facie, there are reasonable grounds available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence alleged against' them, which falls in the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. No specific mala fide, malice or ulterior motive against the complainant or Investigating Officer could be referred/pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners and in absence of the same, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted; in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of "Murad Khan versus Fazal-e-Subhan and another " (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 82), "Mst Oudrat Bibi versus Muhammad lqbal and another " (2003 SCMR 68) and "Rana Abdul Khaliq vs. the State and others" (2019 SCMR 1129). It is by now well settled that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted on the basis of pleas structured upon bald denial and parallel stories; in this regard guidance has been sought from the case of "Mir Muhammad and others vs. National Accountability Bureau throug h Chairman and others" (2020 SCMR 168), "Gulshan Ali Solangi and others us. The State through P.G. Sindh (2020 SCMR 249), "Abdul Aziz Memon versus The State" (2020 SCMR 313) "Ghulam Farooq Channa vs. Special Judge ACE (Central-I) Karachi & another "(PLD 2020 Supreme Court 293) and "Muhammad Islam versus The State through. Advocate General Punjab, Lahore and others" (2020 SCMR 841). Though, Mst. Sajida Mai @) Saeedi (petitioner) is a female yet by now it is well settled that female/woman accused cannot claim pre-arrest bail on the basis of gender; in this regard guidance has been sought from the case of "Saima Ashiq Javed versus State through Attorney General of Pakistan, Lahore and another" (2020 SCMR 1160). Therefore, no case for grant of pre-arres t bail to the petitioners in the case is made out.
3. In view of what has been discussed above, both aforementioned petitions i.e. petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8135-B of 2020 filed by Jalal Ahmad @ Papi (petitioner/accused) and petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 8134-B of 2020 filed by Sajida Mai @ Saeedi (petitio ner/accused), for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case, being devoid of any force are dismissed. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to both the petitioner s by this Court vide order dated: 22.12.2020, is hereby recalled. It is, however , clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of aforementioned bail petitions.