Mst. Sajida Bibi alias Saeedi vs State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mst. Sajida Bibi, who was accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the FIR and the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court observed that the eleven-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the court noted that the victim's daughter had initially reported the incident as committed by an unknown person, and the police failed to record the victim's statement despite her surviving for eleven days post-incident. Consequently, the court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case suffers from unexplained delays and significant evidentiary omissions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry and should be admitted to bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the failure of police to record the statement of a victim who survived for several days after the incident a ground for bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 836/2020 dated 1-11-2020 registered at Police Station City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan, for of fences under Section 302/34, PPC.
2. As per FIR, the prosecution case is that during the night between 19/20-10-2020 the Petitioner and her co- accused, in furtherance of their common intention, sprinkled petrol on Complainant's sister-in-law , Shamshad Mai, and set her on fire. She was admitted to the Nishtar Hospital, Multan, where she succumbed to her injuries on 31.10.2020.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The Complainant reported the matte r 11 days after the occurrence for which he has not furnished any explanation. The said delay indicates consultation and deliberation on his part. At present, the prosecution case primarily rests on the alleged dying declaration of Shamshad Mai. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted a copy of Rapt No. 3 dated 20.10.2020 lodged by Shamshad Mai's daughter Gulnaz in which she categorically stated that the offence was committed by an unknown person. She did not name the Petitioner at all. More importantly , although Shamshad Mai died 11 days after the incident and was conscious most of the time, the police did not record her statement. No explanation has been given for that omission. There is also no evidence that she blamed the Petitioner for the incident before somebody other than the Complainant and expressed a desire to initiate criminal proceedings against her .
5. In view of the foregoing, further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. is required to determine the Petitioner's guilt. He is behind the bars since 18-2-2021 and is not required by the police for further investigation.
Her continuous incarceration could not serve any useful purpose.
6. For all the above reasons, this applica tion is allowed. The Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the