Table of Contents
- Case Overview
- Legal Issues
- Bail and First Proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C.
- Rule of Consistency and Doctrine of Parity
- Further Inquiry in Bail Matters
- Case Facts
- Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner’s Argument
- Complainant’s Argument
- State’s Argument
- Judgment
- Legal Precedents and References
- Analysis of Bail and Relevant Sections
- Application of Rule of Consistency and Further Inquiry
- Conclusion
1. Case Overview
The petitioner, Mst. Ishrat Bibi, filed a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail under FIR No. 406, dated 17.07.2021. The FIR charges her with multiple offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), including murder and criminal conspiracy.
2. Legal Issues
Bail and First Proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C.
Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. allows the court to grant bail to an accused person if certain conditions are met. The first proviso to this section permits the court to grant bail more easily to women, children under 16, and sick or infirm individuals. The petitioner, a woman with a suckling child, seeks bail under this provision.
Rule of Consistency and Doctrine of Parity
The rule of consistency, also called the doctrine of parity, asserts that if the court grants bail to co-accused persons under similar circumstances, it should extend the same benefit to the petitioner.
Further Inquiry in Bail Matters
Further inquiry applies when the court finds insufficient grounds to support the guilt of the accused. In this case, the petitioner argues that there is no strong evidence linking her to the crime.
3. Case Facts
- FIR: The complainant initially filed an FIR against unknown assailants for the murder of her son. She did not name the petitioner in the FIR but later implicated her through supplementary statements.
- Murder: The complainant’s son was shot and later died from his injuries. The petitioner faces accusations of being part of the conspiracy, although no direct involvement in the shooting was attributed to her.
- Further Statements: The complainant added new information through supplementary statements, implicating the petitioner as part of the conspiracy.
4. Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner claims she was not named in the original FIR and that the supplementary statements did not provide solid evidence against her. She argues that, as a woman with a suckling child, she qualifies for bail under the first proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C. She also contends that the court should follow the rule of consistency by granting her bail, as the court granted bail to other co-accused with similar roles.
Complainant’s Argument
The complainant asserts that the petitioner played a central role in planning and executing the murder. She argues that the petitioner should not receive bail because of her alleged involvement in the crime. The complainant maintains that the petitioner’s role differs from that of the co-accused, who received bail.
State’s Argument
The state argues that the petitioner was in contact with the co-accused and played a central role in the conspiracy. The state challenges the application of the rule of consistency, asserting that the petitioner’s involvement in the crime is distinct from the co-accused.
5. Judgment
Legal Precedents and References
The court cites previous decisions such as Tahira Batool v. State (PLD 2022 SC 764) and Asiya v. State (2023 SCMR 383). These cases helped the court understand the application of the first proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C. regarding bail for women. The court also references Ghazala v. State (2023 SCMR 887) for the rule of consistency.
Analysis of Bail and Relevant Sections
The court finds insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the murder. While the supplementary statements implicate her, they do not provide conclusive proof of her active involvement. The court emphasizes that bail can be granted if the evidence against the petitioner is weak.
Application of Rule of Consistency and Further Inquiry
The court observes that the court granted bail to the co-accused, who had similar roles in the crime. Based on the rule of consistency, the petitioner is entitled to the same treatment. The court also notes the lack of strong evidence against her and the need for further inquiry into the case. Therefore, the court grants bail to the petitioner.
6. Conclusion
The court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to her furnishing a surety of Rs. 100,000. The court stressed that the decision was based on the petitioner’s personal circumstances as a woman with a suckling child, the weak evidence against her, and the principle of consistency in bail matters.