Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi vs The State and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi seeking release in case FIR No. 340 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail given the delayed and uncorroborated supplementary statement implicating her and the lack of connecting evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the subsequent statement of the complainant introduced new facts without explanation or independent corroboration, and the recovered articles lacked proof of ownership linking them to the deceased. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law. The key principle laid down is that where an afterthought statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacks supporting independent evidence and recovery links remain unestablished, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of further inquiry.
- Whether a delayed statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating a new accused without independent corroboration warrants post-arrest bail?
- Is unverified recovery of personal articles sufficient to establish prima facie participation in a murder offense?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 404, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, J.---Through present petition the petitioner Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi seeks her release on bail in case FIR No.340 dated 02.09.2020 registered under sections 302/148/149/40 4, P.P.C. at police station Terri, District Karak.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.09.2020 at 21:00 hours complainant Naveed Iqbal along with dead body of his wife Mst. Nazia Begum lodged report in police station to the effect that on the eventful day at Asar Vella his wife Mst. Nazia Begum went out from his hous e towards Shaheed Banda on the pretext of inquiring about the health of an ailing person but till evening she did not come back. The complainant started search for her and found her dead body near Shaheed Banda Bridge. He charged the accused Muhammad Hussa in, Ishaq, Altaf-ur-Rehman and Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman for the murder of the deceased. On 03.09.2020 the complaina nt recorded his statement under section 164, Cr .P.C., wherein he charged the accused/ petitioner along with Zohaib son of Mumtaz.
3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties, learned Asstt: AG for the State and gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
4. It emanates from record that the deceased left her house on the pretext of an inquiry about the health of an ill person and left towards Shaheed Banda and that when she did not turn up he started her search in the surrounding area and found her dead body near Shaheed Banada Bridge and charged Muhammad Hussain, Ishaq, Altaf-ur- Rehman and Ishtaiq-ur-Rehman for the murder of the deceased.
5. It was on 03.09.2021 when the complainant recorded his section 164, Cr.P.C., statement before the court of Judicial Magistrate and introduced new facts that it was one Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi (the petitioner) along with Zohaib son of Mumtaz residents of village Terri who took the deceased on motorcycle towards Banda Daud Shah and was handed over to the accused mentioned in the FIR. The subsequent recorded statement of the complainant finds no basis and he could not explain the source of his satisfa ction and even he failed to produce any independent witness who saw the deceased while riding on motorcycle with the petitioner and another . The investigation officer arrested the petitioner and allegedly a mobile-phone and a purse were taken into possession which was stated to be allegedly the property of the deceased but the prosecution failed to bring on record any conne cting evidence to establish the ownership of the deceased with the recovered articles, even this piece of evidence alone is not sufficient to convince this court of the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence. The cumulative effect of what has been stated above leads this court nowhere but to hold that the petitioner has been succeeded in making out a case for bail as one of further inquiry . Resultantly , the instant bail petition is allowed and the accused/ petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided she furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000f-(rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate, concerned.
These are the detailed reasons of my short order of even date.