2013 PLP 49 (SCMR)
Mst. MARIA KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 49 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MARIA KHAN — 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 2013 PLP 49 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 49 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 49 (SCMR) (Mst. MARIA KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Safdar Hussain Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 2012.
- Malik Rab Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 3-8-2012 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Cr. Misc. No.9938-B of 2012).
S. 497
complainant contended that testimony of three prosecution witnesses had been recorded in Trial Court, therefore, bail should be declined to accused
Such consideration was not valid nor was it an absolute rule that where evidence had been recorded, accused could not be enlarged on bail
Where liberty of citizen was involved such conjectural considerations could not be a basis for declining bail
Bail was allowed accordingly. Malik Rab Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Asjad Javed Ghurral, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner Mst. Maria Khan was implicated in the case F.I.R. No.519 of 2012 on the basis of a supplementary statement which in turn was based on an extra judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before two taxi drivers namely Muhammad Nadeem and Wajid Ali. Upon being questioned, learned counsel states that these two persons are not related to the petitioner and according to the complainant the alleged statement was made by the petitioner before the aforesaid drivers at a taxi stand. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that the testimony of three prosecution witnesses namely the complainant and two taxi drivers, have been recorded in Court. On this basis it is contended that bail should be declined to the petitioner. This is not a valid consideration in the circumstances of the present case nor is it an absolute rule that where evidence has been recorded, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail.
3. The learned Bench of the High Court has not taken into account the above circumstances of the case and has proceeded on the basis of conjecture while observing that "even otherwise it is of (sic) common knowledge that now-a-days the notorious gangs involved in heinous offences deploy womenfolk to fulfill their nefarious designs". We may observe that where the liberty of a citizen is involved such conjectural considerations cannot be a basis for declining bail.
4. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petition is converted into an appeal and is allowed. MH/M-61/SC Bail allowed.