2022 PLP 1080 (SCMR)
FAZAL HADI — Petitioner Versus YAQOOB ULLAH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 1080 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL HADI — Petitioner Versus YAQOOB ULLAH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 1080 (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 2022 PLP 1080 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 1080 (SCMR) (FAZAL HADI — Petitioner Versus YAQOOB ULLAH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Hussain Ali, Advocate Supreme Court (through video link at Peshawar) for Respondent No. 1.
- Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court along with Saleh Shah, S.I. for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 16.11.2021 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Criminal Misc. (B.A.) No.2906-P of 2021)
Ss. 497(2) & 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Qatl-i-amd, common intention
Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of
Accused was alleged to have strangulated his wife to death
High Court granted post-arrest bail to the accused
Held, that nobody was nominated in the FIR and subsequently complainant made statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. in which he charged the accused but it was observed by the High Court that in the said statement no source and no material was disclosed by the complainant through which he came to know regarding involvement of the accused in this case
Regarding contention of complainant that there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased which negated claim of accused that his wife died after falling in the bathroom, the postmortem report indicated that the ligature mark was only on the front side of the neck and it was mentioned by the lady witnesses, who reached after the occurrence at the spot that they saw the deceased in a naked condition lying in the washroom near a bucket
Trial Court, after recording the statement of the doctor, would determine as to whether the ligature mark was the result of the fall on the said bucket or due to some pressure of a rope around her neck
Presently, due to the said reasons, the case of the accused called for further inquiry
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed. Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court along with Saleh Shah, S.I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
Through this petition, petitioner Fazal Hadi impugns the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through which post arrest bail application filed by respondent No. 1 (the respondent) was allowed in case FIR No. 1119 dated 06.08.2021 registered under sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent through video link from Peshawar and the learned counsel for the state, perused the available record including the impugned judgment and observed that nobody is nominated in the FIR and subsequently complainant made statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in which he charged the respondent but it was observed by the High Court that in the said statement no source and no material was disclosed by the complainant/petitioner through which he came to know regarding involvement of the respondent in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the deceased was the wife of the respondent and his statement before the police that she died due to fall in the bathroom is not supported from the fact that there was a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. We have gone through the postmortem report and according to this report, the ligature mark was only on the front side of the neck and it is mentioned by the lady witnesses, who reached after the occurrence at the spot thus they saw the deceased in the naked condition while lying in the washroom near a Bucket (Balti). The trial court, after recording the statement of the doctor, will determine as to whether the ligature mark was the result of the fall on the said Bucket or due to some pressure of the rope around her neck. Presently, due to the said reason, the case of the respondent calls for further inquiry. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contends that challan has been submitted in the Court. The bail granting judgment, being well reasoned, needs no interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave declined. MWA/F-7/SC Petition dismissed.