Mst. HASAN BIBI vs THE STATE
Mst. Hasan Bibi sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 216 dated 2-10-2002 registered under Section 380, subsequently adding Sections 457 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Qutabpur, District Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the applicability of the statutory prohibitory clause, the fact that she was a woman, her period of incarceration, and the debatable application of Section 457. The Lahore High Court held that the applicability of Section 457 needed serious consideration as the petitioner lived with the complainant, the remaining offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and her case fell under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accepted, granting her bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles an accused woman to post-arrest bail?
- Does the debatable applicability of Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a previous non-convict woman imprisoned for seven months entitled to the concession of bail when offences charged do not attract the prohibitory clause?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Mst. Hasan Bibi, the petitioner has sought for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,216 dated 2-10-2002 originally registered under section 380, P.P.C. With Police Station Qutabpur, District Multan. Later on, the police have added sections 457/411, P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that she in the absence of complainant A.S. Shabnam Sani, Advocate had committed theft of her clothes, ornaments and cash amount by breaking open the locks of her Almirah (iron-safe).
3. It has been contended on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in; that the offence under section 457, P.P.C. Is not attracted against her as according to the F.I.R. She was living with the complainant; that the recovery stands effected from her; that the offence under section 380 and 411, P.P.C. Is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that she is woman and that she is behind the bars for the last about seven months and previous non-convict.
4. Conversely; the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that she is named in the F.I.R.; that she has committed theft in the house of the complainant; and that recovery has been effected from her and so she is sufficiently connected with the crime alleged.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That she had been living with the complainant. So the question of application of offence under section 457 in the case against her needs serious consideration. Her case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The alleged recovery stands effected. The offence under sections 380 and 411, P.P.C. Is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. She is woman and is stated to be behind the bars for the last about seven months and previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find her entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and she is admitted to bail provided she furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.