Mst. Batool And Other vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by three female petitioners, Mst. Batool, Mst. Parveen, and Mst. Azra, who were accused in FIR No. 288/2002 under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of golden ornaments from the complainant's shop. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the investigation and their personal status. Upon review, the Court noted that the FIR was lodged with a four-day delay, the petitioners had remained on physical remand without any recovery of stolen items, and they possessed no prior criminal history. Furthermore, the Court observed that although the challan had been submitted, there was no material progress in the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that the absence of recovery during physical remand, the lack of criminal history, and the delay in lodging the FIR, combined with the gender of the accused, constitute sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Does the failure to recover stolen property during physical remand constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can a delay in the registration of an FIR be considered a factor in favor of granting bail to the accused?
- Is the lack of a previous criminal history a relevant consideration for the court when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
(Cr. Misc. No. 206-B/2003)
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J. - This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 206-B/2003 titled "Mst. Batool v.
The State" and Crl. Misc. No. 207-B/2003 titled "Mst. Parveen, etc. v. The State as both arise out of one and the same FIR.
2. Petitioners, Mst. Batool, Mst. Parveen and Mst. Azra seek after arrest bail in case FIR No. 288, dated 16.11.2002 under Section 380, PPC registered with Police Station Chanab Nagar, District Jhang, with the allegations that they stolen the golden ornaments from the shop of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and State have been heard exhaustively and record, has been perused.
4. The case was registered, against the petitioners after they were arrested and FIR was lodged with 4 days' delay. The petitioners remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from them.
They are females and have no previous criminal history. Challan of the case has already been submitted but there is no material progress in the trial, therefore, they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
ORDER
(Cr. Misc. No. 207-B/2003)
(Cr. Misc. No. 207-B/2003)
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, ).-- For the reasons record in my order of even date rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 206- B/2003, "Mst. Batool v. The State" this petition is also accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.