2017 PLP 629 (YLR)
Mst. BHAGUL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 629 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Rasool Memon, J |
| Parties | Mst. BHAGUL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 629 (YLR)?
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 PLP 629 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Rasool Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 629 (YLR) (Mst. BHAGUL — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 4. Learned D.P.G. duly assisted by advocate for the complainant argued that present applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role and there is sufficient material in shape of ocular and medical evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence and prays for recalling the interim pre-arrest of applicant. In support of his contentions, they placed reliance on the cases of Mulo Ahmed v. State (2011 MLD 1171), Ahsan ul Haq v. State (2014 MLD 1220), Gulzar Khoso v. State (2006 PCr.LJ 1984) and Dhani Bux v. State (1989 SCMR 239).
- 6. As per FIR, the main allegation of throttling causing death of deceased is against the co-accused Muhammad Aslam. Present applicant is alleged to have stuffed something forcibly in the mouth of deceased and chemical analysis report reveals that no any poison was detected from viscera's of the deceased, as such, the medical evidence is in consisted with the ocular evidence, thus, her case requires further inquiry. Admittedly, there exists domestic differences between the parties not only after this case but also prior to this incident, in such circumstances mala fide of complainant in involving mother of principal accused cannot be ruled out. The citations relied upon by the learned advocate for the complainant and learned D.P.G have no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.498 & 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-J & 34
Qatl-i-amd
Throttling and poisoning the deceased
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Main allegation of throttling causing death of deceased was against the co-accused
Present accused was alleged to have stuffed something forcibly in the mouth of deceased and chemical analysis report revealed that no poison was detected from viscera's of the deceased
Case against accused required further inquiry and in such circumstances mala fide of complainant could not be ruled out
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed accordingly. Bashir Ahmed Almani for Applicant. Syed Meeral Shah Bukhari, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.
Through the captioned bail application, applicant Mst. Bhagul agitated the order dated 25.10.2014 passed by learned IIIrd. Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, whereby her earlier bail application for bail before arrest was declined and sought pre-arrest bail.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that on 10.8.2014 complainant Abdul Nabi lodged FIR alleging therein that about one and half years prior to this incident his second number daughter Mst. Neelum Bibi was married to his nephew Muhammad Aslam and she had no children; that about one and half months before this case his daughter was ousted of her house after maltreatment on domestic differences but after a faisla she was returned to house of her husband. It is further alleged that on 10.8.2014 complainant along with his wife and daughter Nadiya Bibi was present at 8.00 a.m. he heard cries from the house of his daughter Neelum, they ran to see here; on reaching they saw that Muhammad Aslam and his mother Bhagul (applicant) laid Mst. Neelum on ground, accused Muhammad Aslam was found throttling her and his mother stuffing something yellow colour in her mouth; on seeing complainant party, the accused left her; complainant saw ligature marks on her neck and black colour scratches mark on her body. On asking Mst. Neelum told complainant that her husband and his mother by beating and throttling they made her eat something yellow colour, within seen of complainant party she started vomiting and her tongue protruded out and become unconscious, then she was taken to hospital where she died.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to dispute complainant has malafidely implicated the applicant Mst. Bhagul to harass, humiliate and disgrace her. Per learned counsel, the allegation against present applicant of stuffing something in the mouth of the deceased is not supported by expert report, therefore, her case requires further inquiry. He further submits that after grant of interim pre-arrest bail all along applicant is attending the trial Court for about more than 7/8 months and has not misused the concession of bail, thus, is entitled to its confirmation. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the cases of Muhammad Ilyas v. State (2004 YLR 12), Dilmeer v. State (2007 MLD 188) and Abu Bakar v. State (2010 PCr.LJ 984).
4. Learned D.P.G. duly assisted by advocate for the complainant argued that present applicant is nominated in the FIR with specific role and there is sufficient material in shape of ocular and medical evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of alleged offence and prays for recalling the interim pre-arrest of applicant. In support of his contentions, they placed reliance on the cases of Mulo Ahmed v. State (2011 MLD 1171), Ahsan ul Haq v. State (2014 MLD 1220), Gulzar Khoso v. State (2006 PCr.LJ 1984) and Dhani Bux v. State (1989 SCMR 239).
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. As per FIR, the main allegation of throttling causing death of deceased is against the co-accused Muhammad Aslam. Present applicant is alleged to have stuffed something forcibly in the mouth of deceased and chemical analysis report reveals that no any poison was detected from viscera's of the deceased, as such, the medical evidence is in consisted with the ocular evidence, thus, her case requires further inquiry. Admittedly, there exists domestic differences between the parties not only after this case but also prior to this incident, in such circumstances mala fide of complainant in involving mother of principal accused cannot be ruled out. The citations relied upon by the learned advocate for the complainant and learned D.P.G have no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable.
7. In the light of above circumstances, applicant has made out a prima facie case for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant on 05.11.2014 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. WA/B-8/Sindh Pre-arrest bail confirmed.