Mst. KAUSAR PERVEEN alias KAUSAR BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Kausar Perveen, who was implicated in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was a consenting party to the offence of Zina. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of her gender, invoking the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which provides special consideration for women in bail matters. The State opposed the application, arguing that the offence was heinous and fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The Court, upon consideration, held that as a woman, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Noting that she was a previous non-convict and currently incarcerated, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The judgment reaffirms the principle that female accused are ordinarily entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is a female accused entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the status of being a woman and a previous non-convict provide sufficient grounds for the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Mst. Kausar Perveen alias Kausar Bibi has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,133 dated 20- 6-2002 under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 registered with Police Station Makhdum Rashid, Multan. Later on, the police have added section 10(2) of the said Ordinance.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 6-6-2002 at Fajjar Prayer call' time, the complainant Muhammad Yaqoob on the alarm raised by his daughter Kausar Perveen woke up and saw that Abid, Sadiq alias Shada and Muhammad Akhtar had taken her away forcibly in the car for the purpose of Zina. They had also taken away his gold ornaments and cash amount. The police have arrayed her as an accused being consenting party to Zina with her co-accused Muhammad Hanif.
3. The bail has been sought by her on the solitary ground of being woman and so her case falling within the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In support of the same she has, placed reliance upon the case of Sher Muhammad v. Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others 1984 PCr.LJ 3126 (Karachi) and Mst. Sakina Bibi v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1010 (Lahore).
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that she has been found to be consenting party to Zina, which offence is heinous in nature as well as covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have carefully considered the sub/missions from both sides with the help of available record.
6. She is woman. The first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Is attracted to her case. The female accused on such ground ordinarily is entitled to bail and in this regard reference can be made to the case of Sher Muhammad v. Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others 1984 PCr.LJ 3126 (Karachi) and Mst.
Sakina Bibi v. The State .1)84 PCr.LJ 1010 (Lahore).
7. She is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to exercise my discretion in her favor.
9. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit her to bail subject to her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. HAJIRAN BIBI vs THE STATE 2003 P Cr. L J 1747