Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
JAVED AHMAD ALIAS JAVED IQBAL VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LAHORE
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD PARVEZ VS ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WALTON LAHORE
Summary: Summary pending.
DR SAMIN JAN VS UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR THROUGH VICE CHANCELLOR
Summary: Summary pending.
SYED MEHMOOD ALI SHAH VS ZULFIQAR ALI
Summary: Summary pending.
MS AGRO PACK PVT VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INL REVENUELIMITED PESHAWAR PESHAWAR
Summary: Summary pending.
SYED MEHMOOD ALI SHAH VS ZULFIQAR ALI
Summary: Summary pending.
TALIB HUSSAIN VS MST PARVEEN AKHTAR
Summary: Summary pending.
ABDUL HALEEM OTHERSS VS MIR ZAHID
Summary: Summary pending.
Mst. Asma Bibi VS The State
Summary: Background:
The petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34 PPC (murder with common intention) vide FIR No. 327 dated 01-09-2012 at PS Koral, Islamabad. The incident occurred on 31-08-2012, when the principal accused (the petitioner’s husband) allegedly used a knife to fatally injure his real brother. The petitioner was accused of providing the knife used in the incident. Two eyewitnesses, the mother and brother of both the deceased and the accused, later exonerated the petitioner through sworn affidavits, leading the police to declare her innocent during the investigation. The complainant and the State opposed the bail application, citing the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and requiring the petitioner to prove mala fide intent by the complainant or prosecution.
-----Issues:
1- Whether the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offense justified the continuation of pre-arrest bail.
-----2- Whether the affidavits of eyewitnesses exonerating the petitioner and the police investigation declaring her innocent entitled her to bail.
-----3- Whether the court should grant pre-arrest bail in cases involving heinous offenses under Section 302 PPC.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
--Eyewitness Exoneration: The court noted that both eyewitnesses had submitted affidavits exonerating the petitioner, and the police investigation had declared her innocent. This significantly weakened the allegations against the petitioner.
--Legal Precedents: The court cited Farhat Hussain Shah vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1986), emphasizing that the heinous nature of allegations alone does not preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail. Courts must balance the interests of justice and prevent undue harassment.
--Further Inquiry: The court determined that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC, as there was no substantial evidence against the petitioner.
Principle of Balance: The court stressed that if a person is otherwise entitled to bail, no purpose is served by incarcerating them only to later release them on bail.
The pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 19-12-2012 was confirmed, subject to the previously submitted bail bonds.
-----Citations/Precedents:
Farhat Hussain Shah vs. The State (2011 SCMR 1986): Courts should not deny bail merely due to the heinous nature of allegations.
Hidayat Ullah Khan vs. The Crown (PLD 1949 Lah. 21): Emphasized the need for judicial balance in bail matters.
Zeeshan Khan vs. The State (1997 P.Cr.LJ 881): Discussed the application of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC.
Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah & others (1986 SCMR 1380): Highlighted the importance of individual entitlement to bail.
Ali Gohar & others vs. The State (2008 P.Cr.LJ 652): Reiterated the principle of granting bail in cases of further inquiry.
Pir Wali Khan etc vs Niaz Badshah etc
Summary: Art:133,114 QSO,S.42 LRA:Revenue record,presumption of truth,scope of Estoppel & waiver,concurring finding when to be interfered with