2003 PLP 344 (SCMR)

Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.

1. Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State. Date of hearing: 4th July, 2002. RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 Javaid Niaz, principal accused in the crime for commission of murder of his wife Mst. Nabeela, by administering poisonous drugs i.e. tranquilizers in high dose leading to her unnatural death and wrongly pretending that she died on account of electrocution.

2. According to the prosecution version, Mst. Nabeela was taken to the hospital and was reported to be dead. Contents of her stomach were referred to the Bacteriologist, Government of the Punjab, for chemical examination and report, who reported on 15‑9‑2001 that cause of death of the deceased was stoppage of heart and lungs under the effect of tranquilizers. Respondent No. 1 allegedly caused the death‑ of his wife in close association and connivance with his sister Mst. Aashi and his mother Mst. Anwari Begum. On the day of occurrence besides the petitioner Muhammad Saeed, Jaffar Hussain and Khalid Pervez appeared before the Investigating Officer and deposed that on the preceding day respondent along with his sister and mother had served Kheer to the deceased by putting certain tablets after crushing the same into it. In order to demonstrate their bona fides they also took Kheer in presence of the deceased but without mixing the tranquilizers, with it. The autopsy report on the dead body also disclosed that there was no electric shock caused to the deceased.

3. Respondent as well as his co‑accused i.e. his sister and mother were arrested. At the conclusion of investigation Mst. Aashi was placed in Column. No.2 of the challan while the respondent and his mother were cited as principal accused.

4. Both the lady accused were admitted to bail by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 21‑1‑2002 on the ground that Mst. Anwari Begun was a woman of old age while Mst. Aashi being placed in Column No.2 was entitled to the concession of bail. The respondent was admitted to bail by High Court vide order dated 19‑2‑2002 on the premises that there was undue delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the rule of consistency.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the State Counsel. We are shocked to note that death of the deceased, who was no stranger but real wife of the respondent, took place in his house on account of administration of tranquilizers in large quantity. Respondent, instead of timely taking her to hospital for treatment, disclosed as if she had been electrocuted. It was only on account of timely intervention of her brother Muhammad Saeed that it was detected by the Bacteriologist that her death occurred on account of respiratory failure and failure of lungs due to excessive intake of tranquilizers. We have noticed that initial report of the incident was lodged with the Investigating Officer the same day without any delay but section 302, P.P.C. was incorporated only after .receipt of Expert Report on 15‑9‑2001 and thus it is misconception of fact to say that F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay. Rule of consistency is also least attracted in the case in that no direct role was assigned to Mst. Aashi, sister of respondent, whereas Mst. Anwari Begum, mother of the respondent, was found to be a woman of old age by the High Court. Furthermore, Investigating Officer had placed Mst. Aashi in Column No.2 of the challan which per se could reflect the weakness of evidence against her. The case of Mst. Anwari Begun could be covered by proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. which envisages special treatment for women, minors and persons suffering from ailment and infirmity.

6. Facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, connect the respondent with the commission of heinous crime of murder of his wife and an our view the exercise of discretion by the High Court was legally not justified in law. Accordingly, we convert this petition into appeal, set aside the order dated 19‑2‑2002 of the High Court and cancel the bail erroneously granted to the respondent. H.B.T./M‑643/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail cancelled.