MLD 2012

2012 PLP 754 (MLD)

Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2011-December-28
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP 754 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 754 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 754 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 754 (MLD) (Mst. ROBINA KAUSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Syed Faizul Hassan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 498 & 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.319 & 334

Qatl-e-khata, itlaf-e-udw

Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of

Further inquiry

Mishandling of child's delivery

Ultrasound report

Accused was alleged to have mishandled the delivery of complainant's wife resulting in the death of the child

Accused's contention that according to ultrasound report of complainant's wife conducted before the delivery, the child was already dead and accused neither operated nor handled the complainant's wife rather she was taken to the clinic of another doctor who mishandled the delivery of complainant's wife and delivered the dead child

Validity

Ultrasound report of complainant's wife was concealed in the contents of the F.I.R. and it was only obtained later by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation

Was yet to be determined whether accused had taken the complainant's wife to her home/clinic to attempt delivery of baby and prosecution had not associated the other doctor who had allegedly operated upon the complainant's wife to deliver the dead baby

No confidence inspiring material was available on record to connect the accused with the offences for which she was charged

Accused's false implication could not be ruled out which made the matter one of further inquiry

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.

Mst. Robina Kausar petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.1692 of 2011, dated 3-11-2011, in an offence under section 319 and later on added section 334 P.P.C., Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad on the ground that she has been implicated with malice

2. As per F.I.R. lodged on the complaint of Muhammad Ashiq on 3-11-2011 at 1-20 p.m., allegation against the petitioner is that on 2-11-2011 at about 7 p.m. she accompanied the complainant and his wife Mst. Zainab Ashiq who had to deliver a child being taken to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad; that when the complainant along with his wife reached near Madanpura the petitioner/accused offered them to deliver the baby at her own clinic at Walipura and after taking the complainant's wife to her Clinic she tried to deliver the baby but failed; that thereafter the complainant took his wife to the Clinic of Dr. Ijaz at 4 a.m. who reported that the child had died at night due to mishandling by the accused/petitioner; that Dr. Ijaz operated upon the complainant's wife to deliver the baby and also removed her uterus.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she being neighbour of in-laws of the complainant on their asking associated them to take the complainant's wife to Hospital for the purpose of ultrasound etc; that as per ultrasound report conducted at 7 p.m. on 2-11-2011 the child was reported already dead; that the petitioner had neither operated nor handled the complainant's wife for delivery of the child rather complainant's wife was taken to the Clinic of Mst. Shama who mishandled the complainant's wife; that the complainant's wife was operated upon by Dr. Ijaz who delivered the dead baby and also removed the uterus of the complainant's wife; that the said Dr. Ijaz is not being interrogated by the police; that the petitioner is falsely implicated with malice.

4. It is resisted by the learned D.P.-G. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant with the contentions that the report of ultrasound has been procured by the accused/petitioner with collusion and credibility thereof is yet to be determined during the course of evidence; that if the baby had already died in the uterus then there was no need to take the complainants wife to the house/clinic of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has not substantiated her plea of false implication.

5. I have given patient hearing to the counsel for the parties as well as the learned D.P.-G. for the State and perused the record.

6. Perusal of the record transpires that the factum of having obtained ultrasound test/report of the complainant's wife at 7 p.m. on 2-11-2011 from Rabia Ultraouns Clinic, Faisalabad is concealed in the contents of the F.I.R., rather it was obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation on 16-11-2011 which bears following comments:-- "Single foetus is seen, corresponds to 38 weeks (+ 2 weeks). Foetus is lying longitudinal, with cephalic presentation. Liquor is severely decreased. Foetal heart beat is absent."

7. Be that as it may, it is yet to be determined as to whether the petitioner had taken the complainant's wife to her home/clinic to attempt delivery of baby. It is also evident on the record that the prosecution has not yet associated Dr. Ijaz who allegedly had operated upon complainant's wife to deliver the dead body as well as removed her uterus. At present there is no confidence inspiring material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the offence under section 319 or 334, P.P.C. In the given circumstances petitioner's false implication cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the matter is necessarily a case of further inquiry.

8. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 21-12-2011 is confirmed subject to her furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sums of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. M.W.A./R-6/L Bail confirmed.