MLD 2008

2008 PLP 193 (MLD)

Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2007-October-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 193 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
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 2008 PLP 193 (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 2008 PLP 193 (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: 2008 PLP 193 (MLD) (Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Talat Farooq Sheikh for Petitioner.
  • Azhar Javed Rana, DPG along with Ashiq Hussain S.-I. for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380 & 411

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 2006), S.2

Post -arrest bail, grant of

Accused being an old lady of 60 years age was residing far away from place of occurrence

Co-accused/husband of accused was out of country during relevant period

Commission of charged offences in such situation was not probable

Accused owned plot adjacent to plot owned/possessed by complainant and there was some dispute of demarcation between parties

Accused had joined investigation

Charged offences were not covered by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Incriminating evidence against accused was not available on record

Statement of one prosecution witness recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. for not being related or known to accused would hardly connect her with occurrence

Civil suit inter parties was pending

Arrest of accused being an old Pardah-observing lady would expose her to humiliation, inconvenience, disrepute in eyes of relations and public-at-large, especially when no case was made out against her

Ad interim bail granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 18-9-2007 in case against her vide F.I.R. No.242, dated 1-3-2006 under sections 380, 411, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Defence Area, Lahore. She, thereafter, filed instant petition for the same relief and she was admitted to ad-interim pre arrest bail on 21-0-2007 which has now been fixed for confirmation.

2. Charge against the petitioner is that she along with her 10/12 companions damaged constructions of the complainant and removed his valuable articles including 15 Split Air-Conditioners and other house-hold goods, on 27-2-2006 when the complainant was not present at the place of occurrence.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Undisputedly, petitioner owns Plot No.73 adjoining the Plot No.73-1/C owned/possessed by the complainant and there is some dispute of demarcation between the parties. Petitioner is an old lady of 60 years of age and resides at Shalimar Link Road, Lahore, far away from the place of occurrence. Her husband Javed Khalid Bhatti was out of country from 21-2-2006 to 8-10-2006 and in this situation, commission of the offences charged is not probable. By virtue of Ordinance XXXV of 2006 petitioner being an old lady is entitled to the concession of bail especially when she has already joined the police investigation and the offences reported to have been committed, are not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner, and the statement of the only prosecution witness namely Muhammad Nawaz under section 161, Cr.P.C. hardly connects the petitioner with the occurrence as he is not related or known to the petitioner and had no reason to be present at the spot. Civil suit inter parties is reported to be pending and it appears that criminal prosecution of the petitioner has been created to generate pressure on her. Prima facie, arrest of the petitioner who is an old Parda-observing Lady would expose her to humiliation/inconvenience/disrepute in the eyes of her relations and pubic-at-large, especially when case against her is not made out.

4. For the reasons noted above, petitioner has a case for confirmation of her bail before arrest and consequently instant petition is allowed and bail before arrest already given to her on 21-9-2007 is confirmed. S.A.K./N-89/L Bail granted.