2017 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. Syeda RAAZIA BATOL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. Syeda RAAZIA BATOL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. Syeda RAAZIA BATOL — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arif Majeed for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, common object
Only tentative assessment was required
Accused was empty handed at the place of occurrence, and she had not committed any overt act at the spot
Fatal-shot injuries to the deceased as well as injured, had been attributed to principal accused
Accused had no concern with the disputed land, which was the motive part of the case
Mere presence of the employee with her master at the place of occurrence, did not by itself constitute any criminal liability, unless she took part in the incident
Accused was a female and by virtue of her gender, she was also entitled for concessionary relief from the court
Question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention with her co-accused would be determined by the Trial Court at the time of trial after recording evidence in the case
Accused being previous non-convict, was never involved in any criminal case
Investigation in the case was complete and nothing was to be recovered from accused
Handing over custody of accused to the Police, would not serve any beneficial purpose, especially in the circumstances when expectedly accused would come out of jail after few days on post-arrest bail
Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Syeda Raazia Batol petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 245/15, dated 15.11.2015 registered at Police Station Chontra, Rawalpindi in respect of offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. A perusal of FIR shows that the petitioner was empty handed at the place of occurrence and she has not committed any overt act at the spot rather the fatal fire-shot injuries to the deceased Zaheer Abbas as well as Ahmad Khan injured have been attributed to principal accused Gulzar Ali Khan Bangash. During the investigation conducted so far it has come on record that the petitioner is secretary of above said Gulzar Ali Khan Bangash and she has no concern at all with the disputed land vis-a-vis the motive part of this case. I may express here that mere presence of an employee with her master at the place of occurrence does not by itself constitute any criminal liability unless she took part in the incident. The petitioner is a female and by virtue of her gender she is also entitled for concessionary relief from this Court. Law is quite settled on the point that question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention with her co-accused will be determined by the learned trial court at the time of trial after recording evidence in this case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, the investigation conducted so far qua her is complete, nothing is to be recovered from her, therefore, handing over his custody to the police at this stage would not serve any beneficial purpose especially in the circumstances when expectedly she will come out of jail after few days on post-arrest bail.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2016 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of fresh bail bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. HBT/R-5/L Bail confirmed.