2019 PLP 1588 (MLD)
Hafiz MOHAMMAD SHEHZAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1588 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Hafiz MOHAMMAD SHEHZAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1588 (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 2019 PLP 1588 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1588 (MLD) (Hafiz MOHAMMAD SHEHZAD — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-J, 324 & 511---Hurts by poison, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Scope---Positive chemical report--Effect---Allegation against the petitioner was that he administrated poison, through sweet, to his wife---Petitioner contended that during trial his advocate made the suggestion to the alleged victim that " you do not want to live with the accused(petitioner) as his wife at any cost" on which she kept mum for considerable time and later stated that she wanted time---First Information Report had been lodged with delay and the parties were husband and wife---Alleged offence was unseen and only piece of evidence against the petitioner was a positive chemical report; however, the same did not suggest that the petitioner was the person who administered poison to the victim---Prosecution could not justify the factum of non-replying the question/suggestion by the victim before the Trial Court whereby she, instead of replying the same in affirmative, or negative, preferred to seek time---Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.
- Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, D.P.G. for Respondent.
- 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submit that the alleged victim is wife of the applicant and allegation against him is that he allegedly administered poison to her through sweet, which was also eaten by the Applicant. He next submits that all material prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and even victim Mst. Nousheen has been examined and was also subjected to cross-examination; however, at the juncture of cross-examination, a suggestion as mentioned in Ex.4 "Advocate for accused made the suggestion that "you do not want to live with Shahzad as his wife at any cost." On which the witness kept mum for more than 10-minutes and did not replied and at last she stated that she want time." was put from her, who sought time. He further submits that only piece of evidence as available against the Applicant is laboratory report and in view of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Ata Muhammad and another v. The State (1995 SCMR 599), mere positive report of the medical evidence does not indicate that same was caused or administered by the accused. He also submits that in this case the FIR is delayed, besides the offence is unseen. His further submission is that Applicant has been enjoying concession of interim pre-arrest bail and when the trial of the case is at the verge of its conclusion, any adverse order against him will prejudice his case before the trial Court. He, therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail; besides, files certified copies of the depositions of P.W-1 Sahib Shah and P.W-2 Mst. Nousheen (victim), same are also taken on record.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-J, 324 & 511
Hurts by poison, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Scope
Positive chemical report--Effect
Allegation against the petitioner was that he administrated poison, through sweet, to his wife
Petitioner contended that during trial his advocate made the suggestion to the alleged victim that " you do not want to live with the accused(petitioner) as his wife at any cost" on which she kept mum for considerable time and later stated that she wanted time
First Information Report had been lodged with delay and the parties were husband and wife
Alleged offence was unseen and only piece of evidence against the petitioner was a positive chemical report; however, the same did not suggest that the petitioner was the person who administered poison to the victim
Prosecution could not justify the factum of non-replying the question/suggestion by the victim before the Trial Court whereby she, instead of replying the same in affirmative, or negative, preferred to seek time
Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.
Through this application, Applicant Hafiz Muhammad Shehzad seeks his admission on pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 69/2018, registered at Police Station A-Section Latifabad Hyderabad, under sections 324, 511, 337-J, P.P.C. Earlier, bail plea preferred by him before the trial Court has been declined by means of order dated 23.04.2018.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are already available in Court file as well as in the impugned order, therefore, no need to reiterate the same.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submit that the alleged victim is wife of the applicant and allegation against him is that he allegedly administered poison to her through sweet, which was also eaten by the Applicant. He next submits that all material prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and even victim Mst. Nousheen has been examined and was also subjected to cross-examination; however, at the juncture of cross-examination, a suggestion as mentioned in Ex.4 "Advocate for accused made the suggestion that "you do not want to live with Shahzad as his wife at any cost." On which the witness kept mum for more than 10-minutes and did not replied and at last she stated that she want time." was put from her, who sought time. He further submits that only piece of evidence as available against the Applicant is laboratory report and in view of dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Ata Muhammad and another v. The State (1995 SCMR 599), mere positive report of the medical evidence does not indicate that same was caused or administered by the accused. He also submits that in this case the FIR is delayed, besides the offence is unseen. His further submission is that Applicant has been enjoying concession of interim pre-arrest bail and when the trial of the case is at the verge of its conclusion, any adverse order against him will prejudice his case before the trial Court. He, therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim pre-arrest bail; besides, files certified copies of the depositions of P.W-1 Sahib Shah and P.W-2 Mst. Nousheen (victim), same are also taken on record.
4. Conversely, learned A.P.G. as well as counsel for the complainant oppose the grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground that sufficient material has been collected by the prosecution against the Applicant and thus he is not entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material made available before me on record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the FIR is delayed and the parties are husband and wife. Besides, the offence is unseen and only piece of evidence against the Applicant is that a positive chemical report was received; however, it does not suggest that the Applicant was the person who administered the poison to victim. Learned APG as well as counsel for the complainant while arguing the case, could not justify the factum of non-replying the question by the victim before the trial Court whereby she instead of replying the same in affirmative or negative preferred to seek time. Applicant has been enjoying relief of interim pre-arrest bail from 26.04.2018, therefore, in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Haleem Lakho v. Abdul Karim alias Karim Bux and others (2005 SCMR 1539), case against the Applicant requires further inquiry, within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, instant bail application is allowed. Interim pre-arrest bail order dated 26.4.2018, granted earlier by this Court in favour of the Applicant is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
7. Needless to mention that observations made herein above are tentative in nature would not influence the trial Court while deciding the case on merits. MQ/M-72/Sindh Bail confirmed.