2019 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497, third proviso
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, & 34
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Accused, a female
Allegation against petitioner was that she, with her son and other inmates, participated in the murder of her daughter-in-law (daughter of the complainant) by stimulating her and then giving it an incident of suicide
Occurrence was reported with the delay of fifteen hours
Petitioner was arrested on the same day and for more than one and half years she was in jail
Petitioner was a woman of old age and was statedly suffering from diabetic, hypertension, arthritis and other age relating diseases
Previous bail petition of petitioner lady was though declined but direction was passed to conclude the trial within a period of three months
Said directions were not complied with and such delay was not attributed to the petitioner
Record revealed that co-accused (other lady) was already admitted to bail by the Trial Court and the allegations levelled against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offence appeared to be identical to that of the said co-accused
Petitioner being woman her case fell under third proviso of S. 497, Cr.P.C.
Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.
The applicant is seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered against her at Police Station Sir Syed, Karachi, initiated by lodging FIR No. 08 of 2017 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting enlightened by the valued submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and learned DPG, as well as scanning of the available record, I have observed as under:- (a) The allegation against the applicant is that she with her son Imtiaz and other inmates participated in the murder of her daughter-in-law namely Aisha Zia daughter of complainant Shaikh Ziauddin by stimulating her and then giving it an incident of suicide. (b) The alleged incident was taken place on 05-01-2017 at about 01:30 hours and reported on the same day with a delay of about 15 hours at 16:25 hours. (c) The applicant is arrested on the day of lodging of FIR and since then she is continuously under custody, as such, more than one and half years passed in jail. (d) The applicant is a woman of old age and allegedly she is suffering from diabetic, hypertension, arthritis and other age relating diseases. (e) Previously, her bail application was declined vide order dated 15-12-2017 with the directions to trial court to dispose of the case within a period of three months but the said direction could not be complied with. (f) From the record annexed with the instant bail application, it appears that the delay in trial is not attributed to the applicant. (g) The other lady accused namely Ambreen was admitted to bail by the trial Court and the allegations levelled against the applicant in respect of the alleged offence appears to be identical to that of the co-accused, whom bail was granted by the trial court. (h) Being a woman, the case of the applicant falls under third proviso of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. In view of the above observation, I am confident that a case of bail has been made out in favour of the applicant, as such, she is entitled to post arrest bail in the instant case.
4. The ultimate outcome of the above discussion is that since the applicant is entitled to bail; therefore, she is admitted to bail subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) only and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court through my short order dated 27-10-2018 and these are the reasons for the same.
5. Before parting, I would like to further observe that if the applicant after getting bail will not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that she has absconded away then the trial Court is fully authorised to take every action against her and her surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court. MQ/Z-13/Sindh Bail allowed.