2017 PLP 1125 (MLD)
Mst. SAKINA UMRANI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1125 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SAKINA UMRANI — 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 1125 (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 2017 PLP 1125 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1125 (MLD) (Mst. SAKINA UMRANI — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 504, 109, 120B & 34
Qatl-i-amd; attempt to commit qatl-i-amd; intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace; abetment; criminal conspiracy; common intention
Absondence
Effect
No overt act of making fire upon the deceased had been assigned to the accused
Only allegation against the accused was that she, along with the co-accused, while meeting the principal accused in the court premises (during judicial custody in another case), had provided him a pistol, whereby, the principle accused had committed the alleged murder in the Prisoners' Hall, where the accused, the complainant, the deceased and the injured had been kept under custody
No one had seen the accused giving the pistol to the principal accused, and that was only the complainant's claim that the accused and co-accused had provided the pistol to the principal accused
Complainant had not specified as to whether the accused or the co-accused had provided the pistol, and the same was yet to be determined by the Trial Court
Abscondence of the accused would not come in the way of grant of bail, if the case for grant of bail was otherwise made out
Accused, in the circumstances of the case should not have been deprived of the benefit of bail
Bail application was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR HUSSAIN, J.
Through this Application, the Applicant seeks post arrest bail, as her Bail Application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Larkana, vide Order dated 26.2.2016, in Crime No.05/2012, Under Sections 302, 324, 109, 120-B, 34, 504, P.P.C., of P.S. Civil Line, Larkana. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.01.2012, the Complainant Imdad Ali Umrani, lodged the said FIR, stating therein that he along with his brother viz. Mashooq Ali, Imtiaz Ali and cousin viz. Arif Ali, were in judicial custody in Crime No.07/2010, under Section 302, P.P.C, for the alleged murder of Ahsan Umrani, the nephew of Habibullah Umrani, who was also in judicial custody in Crime No.19/2011, under section 324, P.P.C., and Crime No.09/ 2011 under section 324, P.P.C. of P.S. Areeja and Abdul Ghafoor, Karim Bux, Ahmed and Rehmatullah, were threatening Complainant for withdrawal of the case, otherwise they will be killed inside the jail. On 16.1.2012, the Complainant with the said persons and Habibullah Umrani, were taken from the Central Prison, Larkana to the Sessions Court, Larkana; produced in the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in Police Custody; after attending the hearing they were taken out from the Court's Room; when they reached at the Outer Gate, where Ahmed and Mst. Sakina (Applicant), met and talked with Habibullah; thereafter the Complainant and all of them were taken to the Prisoner's Hall; when they all were sitting inside the hall, accused Habibullah, took out pistol from the fold of his shalwar and fired with intention to kill Complainant's brother viz. Mashooq Ali, which hit him and he fell down on the ground and accused repeated fire, which hit complainant's cousin viz. Arif Ali, who also fell down and the fire also hit to prisoner viz. Darban Ali. The Police entered therein; recovered Pistol from the Accused and the Complainant went to Mashooq Ali, who sustained firearm injuries on his head and left hand, while Arif Ali, sustained injury on the right side belly and prisoner Darban Ali, sustained firearm injury on his left leg, who were shifted to the casualty with the assistance of Police and Complainant's brother Mashooq Ali expired. The complainant reported that said Ahmed and Mst. Sakina, while meeting with accused Habibullah, in Court gave him Pistol and on the abetment and planning of accused Abdul Ghafoor, Karim Bux and Rehmatullah the accused Habibullah Umrani, on account of said enmity, fired Pistol's shots upon Complainant's brother viz. Mashooq Ali, who was murdered and Complainant's cousin viz. Arif and prisoner Darban Ali Jatoi, received injuries. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Applicant, learned D.D.P.P., and also Counsel for Complainant, who have opposed the grant of bail to Applicant and going through the record, I have observed as follows:-- (i) That admittedly there exists old murderous enmity between the Parties; (ii) That no overt act of making fire upon deceased has been assigned to the Applicant rather the only allegation against her is that she and co-accused Ahmed met Principal Accused Habibullah in the compound of Sessions Court and provided him pistol, from which, murder has been committed by Principal Accused inside the Prisoner's Hall, where Accused, Complainant, Deceased and Injured were kept under custody; (iii) That as per contents of the FIR neither the Complainant nor any one has seen the Applicant and co-accused Ahmed, while giving Pistol to Principal Accused viz. Habibullah; however it is the only word and claim of the Complainant that Applicant and co-accused provided pistol to Principal Accused; (iv) That there is bare allegation of providing Pistol to Principal Accused against two accused including Applicant and there is no specification that it was the Applicant or the co-accused Ahmed, who provided Pistol to Principal Accused, therefore, it is yet to be determined during trial that who gave pistol to Principal Accused viz. Habibullah; (v) That so far as absconsion of the Applicant is concerned it is well settled law that absconsion would not come in the way of grant of bail, if otherwise the case is made out for grant of bail. Reference is made to the case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCMR 299) Malik Mukhtiar Ahmed Awan v. The State (1991 SCMR 322). In view of the above circumstances, the Applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail and in such circumstances accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. Reference is made to the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), case of Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241), and case of Nisar Ahmed v. The State (2014 SCMR 27). Accordingly, the instant Bail Application stands allowed and the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (three hundred thousand rupees) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence case of either party at trial. SL/S-60/Sindh Bail allowed.