2018 P Cr (PLP)
SAIMA ZAKA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2018 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAIMA ZAKA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 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 2018 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 2018 P Cr (PLP) (SAIMA ZAKA — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Ihtisham Ali Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(1) & (2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148 & 149
Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt and common object
Delayed statements of prosecution witnesses
Effect
Female accused was initially mentioned as witness, her husband being the complainant, but other witness mentioned in the FIR involved said couple as accused persons in her statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.
Record revealed that after about one month and seventeen days of the occurrence she recorded her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused threw the deceased on the ground by holding her hair
Said witness remained quiet for such a period which cast serious doubt about the involvement of the accused as delayed statements of prosecution witnesses had got little value
Accused had not caused any injury to any of the deceased persons, hence, vicarious liability of the accused or sharing common intention by her with her co-accused persons for committing murder of both the deceased would be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence
Accused was a female and because of her gender, her case fell within the proviso to subsection (1) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was previous non-convict and case of accused became one of further inquiry as envisaged under subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. [Paras. 2 & 3 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Saima Zaka has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 346/2016 dated 13.09.2016 under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Farooqabad, Sheikhupura.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It is noticed that initially the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR as PW whereas her husband was complainant of this case but she along with her husband was involved as an accused on the statement of PW Huraira Bibi recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 29.10.2016 after about one month and seventeen days of the occurrence that the petitioner threw the deceased Fouzia Rakhshanda on the ground by holding her hairs and the fact why she has remained mum for such a period has cast serious doubt about the involvement of petitioner in this case. It is settled law that delayed statements of PWs recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. have got little value. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Ghulam Qadir and 2 others v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221), Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486). It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not caused any injury to any of the deceased, hence, the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner or sharing common intention by her with her co-accused for committing murder of both the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125. The petitioner is a woman and because of her gender, her case falls within the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. She is behind the bars since 05.05.2017. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. Her further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. MQ/S-17/L Bail granted.