Mahnoor Shahid VS The State

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1253 of 2026 Mahnoor Shahid Vs.

The State and another

S. No. of Date of Order with signature of Judge and that of order/ order/ parties or counsel where necessary. proceedings Proceedings

17-9-2026. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khan Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Yasir Rashid Advocate, for the Complainant.

Mr. Muhammad Waqas Haral, Deputy District Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Ameer SI with record.

SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND, J.: Through instant petition, the Petitioner, Mahnoor Shahid, seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No. 205 dated 4-5-2026, for offences under Sections 302, 365, 201, 114 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”) registered at Police Station Phulgran, Islamabad,.

2.Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as reflected from the contents of the FIR, is that on 04.05.2026, Ch. Afzal (“complainant”) submitted an application before the SHO, Police Station

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

Kohsar, Islamabad, stating that at about 12:00 midnight, while he was asleep at his house, he heard hue and cry outside. Upon coming out along with his wife, he saw that his son’s black Revo vehicle was parked while engine was in “start” position and that four/five unknown persons were forcibly taking his son with them by dragging him into a Corolla vehicle. The complainant, along with his neighbours, attempted to approach the assailants; however, the latter allegedly resorted to firing and fled from the spot in haste. Thereafter, the mobile phone bearing No. 03338362900, allegedly being used by the complainant’s son, was switched off. The complainant accordingly requested the police for recovery of his son from the unknown assailants. Subsequently, during investigation, the complainant got recorded his supplementary statement dated 05.05.2026 alleging that the petitioner alongwith co-accused abducted and murdered his son namely, Farrukh Afzal (“deceased”).

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case; that petitioner being female accused is behind the bars since her arrest; that the petitioner’s nomination through supplementary statement after the initial FIR was registered against unknown assailants, is a matter requiring cautious appraisal at trial and at least at bail stage creates a question requiring further inquiry; that the alleged recoveries and other circumstantial

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

evidence is also to be adjudged at trial. The learned counsel submitted that proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C. permits the court to consider release on bail in case of a woman accused subject to the circumstances of the case as such the petitioner’s status as a female accused is relevant consideration for bail; that investigation of the case has been completed and petitioner is no longer required for any further investigation. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

4.Conversely, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail petition on the ground that petitioner has committed pre-planned abduction and murder of the deceased; as such she has committed heinous offence and therefore, she even being a female is not entitled to the concession of bail. They argued that petitioner identified the abduction place besides the place where dead-body was thrown; that recoveries have been affected from her possession therefore, she is well connected with the commission of offence and as is not entitled to the concession of bail. They in support of their contentions relied upon Mst. Naila Younus vs. State, 2020 MLD 1036; Saboor Khan vs. State, etc. 2015 PLJ 687; Faiz Muhammad vs. Zaibul Nisa and another, 2009 PLJ 521; Mst. Gul Khatoon alias Gukki vs. State, 2008 YLR 2293; Mst. Munazza Saleem vs. State, 2006 PLJ 1038; Zubeda Bibi vs. The State, 2000 YLR 2088.

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

5.Arguments heard while record perused.

6.Admittedly, the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR. The FIR was initially registered against four/five unknown persons, who were allegedly involved in abduction of the deceased. The petitioner was subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement. The allegation against her, as presently reflected from the investigation, is that she individually planned the abduction, hired co-accused Saif Ullah and his companions, was present near the place of occurrence when finally complainant’s son was murdered.

7.At the outset, it is material to examine the petitioner’s entitlement to bail in the context of the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a woman and the offences alleged against her, including Section 302 PPC, otherwise fall within the prohibitory clause. However, the fact that alleged offence is punishable with death does not, by itself, exclude the petitioner from the beneficial operation of the first proviso.

8.The scope of the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Mst. Tahira Batool v. The State and another, PLD 2022 SC 764, wherein it was held that the power of Court to grant bail to a woman accused, even where the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause, is to be exercised on the same principle applicable to

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

offences falling outside the prohibitory clause. The Court further held that, in cases falling within the first proviso, bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.

9.The principle was subsequently considered and applied by the Supreme Court in Mst. Ghazala v. The State and another, 2023 SCMR 887, where the petitioner, a woman accused of an offence under Section 302 PPC, was granted post-arrest bail. Supreme Court expressly held that, irrespective of the category of the offence, in the case of a woman falling within the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., bail is to be granted as a rule and refusal only as an exception. The Court identified the exceptional circumstances justifying refusal as: (i) likelihood of the accused absconding to escape trial; (ii) likelihood of tampering with prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses so as to obstruct the course of justice; and (iii) likelihood of repeating the offence.

10.The said judgment is particularly relevant to the present case because Supreme Court in Mst. Ghazala (Supra) was dealing with an allegation of intentional murder under Section 302 PPC. The Supreme Court further clarified that, while considering bail under first proviso to Section 497(1), mere availability of incriminating material connecting a woman accused with the alleged offence is not, by itself, a relevant consideration for refusing bail; rather, the prosecution is required

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

to bring the case within one of the well-established exceptions to the rule of bail.

11.In the present case, the learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged planning of the occurrence, the pointation of places and the recoveries attributed to the petitioner. However, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses, or repeat the alleged offence. The seriousness of the accusation, though a relevant circumstance in the overall consideration of a bail petition, cannot by itself displace the statutory protection extended to a woman accused under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

12.The case of the petitioner is further strengthened by the fact that she was not nominated in the FIR and her implication subsequently came through supplementary statement. The evidentiary worth of such subsequent nomination, particularly in circumstances where the initial version attributed the occurrence to unknown persons, is a matter which requires assessment after recording of evidence at trial. Likewise, the alleged recoveries and the pointation attributed to the petitioner are matters which ultimately have to be established

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

through legally admissible evidence. At this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a deeper appreciation of such evidence as would be undertaken after a full-fledged trial.

13.Independently of the protection available under the first proviso to Section 497(1), the material presently available also brings the case of the petitioner within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The prosecution has not attributed any specific overt act to the petitioner in the actual commission of the alleged murder. Mere presence near the place of occurrence, without a specific allegation of causing injury, firing upon the deceased or physically participating in the abduction, requires cautious appraisal at trial. The question whether the petitioner can be held vicariously liable for the acts allegedly committed by the co-accused cannot, in the circumstances of present case, be conclusively determined at the bail stage.

14.In this regard, reliance may appropriately be placed upon Qurban Ali v. The State and others, 2017 SCMR 279, wherein the Supreme Court observed that where no overt act is attributed to an accused except the allegation of raising a lalkara, the question of vicarious liability for the acts of co- accused is to be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence. A similar principle was recognized in Manzoor Hussain and another v. The State, 2011 SCMR 902. The principle is

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

attracted to the present case to the extent that the petitioner’s alleged presence and association with the co-accused, without attribution of a specific overt act in the commission of murder, require determination upon evidence.

15.Another significant circumstance is that the investigation has already been completed, the petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2026, and the challan has already been submitted before the competent Court on 08.06.2026. The petitioner is, therefore, no longer required for any further investigation. The possibility of her continued detention for the purpose of investigation, which may otherwise constitute a relevant consideration, does not survive. The alleged recoveries have already been effected and their evidentiary value is a matter for determination by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.

16.Consequently, the petitioner’s entitlement to bail rests on two independent considerations. First, being a woman accused, her case is governed by the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., under which bail is the rule and refusal an exception, and none of the recognized exceptions has been established against her. Second, even on the ordinary test under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., the absence of a specific overt act attributed to her, her subsequent implication through a supplementary statement, and the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution render her case one

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

requiring further inquiry. The fact that the allegations include offences under Sections 302/365, PPC does not, by itself, take the petitioner outside the protective scope of the first proviso.

17.For what has been discussed above, the petitioner is held entitled to the concession of post- arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is ALLOWED. The petitioner, Mst. Mahnoor Shahid, is admitted to post-arrest bail in FIR No.205 dated 04.05.2026, registered for offences under Sections 302, 365, 201, 114 and 34 PPC, subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to furnish the surety amount in cash, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

18.Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, confined solely to the adjudication of the present post-arrest bail petition, and shall not prejudice either the prosecution or the defence at trial. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the prosecution case, and the Trial Court shall remain uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. It is further made clear that if the concession of bail is misused by the Petitioner or any delay in conclusion of trial is caused by her or

Crl. Misc. No. 1253/2026.

anyone else acting on her behalf, the Trial Court shall be competent to recall the bail granted, after hearing the parties, strictly in accordance with the law.

(SHAHRUKH ARJUMAND)

JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Tanveer Ahmed/*