2005 PLP 470 (YLR)
Mst. BUSHRA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 470 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J |
| Parties | Mst. BUSHRA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 470 (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 2005 PLP 470 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 470 (YLR) (Mst. BUSHRA BIBI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Zameer‑ul‑Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497(1)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Further inquiry‑‑‑Accused allegedly had caught deceased from his arms while her co accused had inflicted Churri blow on the deceased‑‑‑Question of sharing common intention of accused was to be gone into at the time of trial‑‑‑Case of accused, in circumstances was amply covered within mischief of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. calling for further inquiry into the guilt of accused‑‑‑Accused being a woman, first proviso to S.497(1), Cr. P. C. was attracted to her case‑‑‑Accused was having with her milk suckling child aged about 8/9 months in jail‑‑‑Principle laid down in case reported as 1991 MLD 518, was applicable to the ‑ case of the accused‑‑‑Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Mst. Zareena Bibi v. The State 1991 MLD 518 Lah. ref. Muntazir Mehdi for the State. Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Siddique, S.-I. with Record. Mst Bushra Bibi the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.70 dated 28‑3‑2003, under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Hafizabad.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 28‑3‑2003 in the evening Qaisar Iqbal alias Mittu and Mst. Bushra Bibi (petitioner) in furtherance of their common intention have committed the Qatl e‑Amd of Nazir Ahmad deceased. She (petitioner) had caught hold of him (deceased) from his arms while Qaisar Iqbal alias Mittu inflicted him Churri blow on the chest near the heart, who died at the spot.
3. The occurrence is said to have taken place due to the illicit intimacy between the two accused.
4. It has been contended on her behalf that she has falsely been roped in; that she was empty handed at the time of the alleged incident; that she had no occasion to catch hold of the deceased from his arms; that the question of her sharing common intention will be gone into at the time of trail; that she is behind the bars for the last about six months along with her milk suckling female child namely Mst. Zareena Bibi aged about 8/9 months; and that she is previous non convict.
5. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that F.I.R. in this case is prompt one; that she is named in the F.I.R.; and that she has facilitated her co‑accused in the commission of Qatl‑e‑Amd of Nazir Ahmed, deceased.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
7. Allegedly, she had caught the deceased from his arms while her co accused Qaiser Iqbal alias Mittu inflicted him Churri blow as mentioned above. The question of her sharing common intention is to be gone into at the time of trial. Hence, her case is amply covered within the mischief of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into her guilt.
8. Besides than this, she is a woman and so First Proviso to section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. is also attracted to her case Further more, admittedly, she is having with her milk suckling child aged about 8/9 months in Jail. Hence the principle laid down in the case of Mst. Zareena Bibi v. The State 1991 MLD 518 Lahore is also applicable to her case. In these circumstances, I find that the case for her enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and she is admitted to bail provided she furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./B‑175/L Bail granted.