ABDUL GHAFOOR vs YASMEEN BIBI
This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1, Mst. Yasmeen Bibi, who was implicated in a murder case registered under sections 302/109/149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the bail granted to a female accused by the Additional Sessions Judge was properly exercised under the law, considering her belated mention in a supplementary statement and the general rule regarding women under criminal procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's allegations regarding the catching hold of the deceased appeared doubtful in the face of the post-mortem report and firearm usage, and since the respondent is a woman, her case is squarely covered by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed the judicial discretion exercised by the lower court and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that bail granted to women under the statutory proviso warrants no interference absent compelling contrary grounds.
- Whether a supplementary statement introducing an accused at a belated stage carries significant weight for denying bail?
- Is the case of a female accused covered under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the allegation of catching hold of a victim become doubtful when a co-accused is armed with a firearm?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Mst. Yasmeen Bibi respondent No,1 alongwith others, namely, Mst. Siasat Bibi, Javed Aslam Bhatti, Ashiq Bhatti and Iftikhar, stands involved in Crime Report No,332, dated 26-8-2002, under sections 302/109/149 read with section 148, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Raiwind Saddar, at the instance of Abdul Ghafoor. Muhammad Ali, son of the petitioner was allegedly killed by Iftikhar Ahmad, principal accused, by the discharge of a .12 bore gun. Shot made by him struck at the back of his chest, who died at the spot instantaneously. Respondent No,1 and her co-accused were present at the spot. Mst. Yasmeen Bibirespondent No,1 after being arrested preferred an application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Kasur, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for adjudication purposes. The said learned Judge allowed bail to her by virtue of his order, dated 12-11-2002 on the basis of a variety of reasons embodied in the order itself.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his attractive arguments to this Court puts the matter like this:--
(i) That during course of investigation the complainant made a supplementary statement, in which he ascribed a specific role of catching hold of the deceased to the respondent.
(ii) That the respondent was found guilty after thorough investigation and had developed illicit liaison with Ashiq Bhatti her co-accused in the past and for that reason she was wrongly allowed bail by the said learned Judge.
3. I have, with much care and devotion heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of First Information Report minutely. Name of respondent No,1 does not figure in the First Information Report. Her name was introduced as an accused at a belated stage through supplementary statement, which is hardly given any weight under the law. According to learned counsel, Muhammad Ali deceased was caught hold by Mst. Yasmeen Bibi-respondent No,1 alongwith others, whereas Iftikhar co-accused fired at the waist of the deceased by means of a gun. This allegation if viewed in the light of contents of post-mortem report does not seem to be wholly true. Nobody could dare to catch hold of the man, when co-accused is likely to make a shot at the victim by a gun. No one would take risk of being hit by the discharge of a fire-arm. This allegation is doubtful. Admittedly, respondent No,1 is a woman and her case is fully covered under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Which deals with persons under sixteen years of age, women and all those who are sick or infirm.
Conscientious judicial discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is governed by law. It does not call for any interference. I see no merits in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
THE END