| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 3277 2022 SLD 3277 2022 PCRLJ 1824 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 198-B of 2022, decision Dated: 21st April, 2022.
ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J
Petitioner on ad-interim bail with Taimoor Aslam Khan for the Petitioner. Ghulam Farooq Awan for
Respondents. Syed Shahbaz Shah, State counsel along with Muhammad Akram Gondal, Inspector.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 198-B of 2022, decision Dated: 21st April, 2022.
ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J
Petitioner on ad-interim bail with Taimoor Aslam Khan for the Petitioner. Ghulam Farooq Awan for
Respondents. Syed Shahbaz Shah, State counsel along with Muhammad Akram Gondal, Inspector.
RUKHSANA BIBI
VS
The STATE and anothers
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 498,497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,109,34
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Scope---Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy to be extended by diverting usual course of law for the purpose of protecting reputation and honour of an innocent citizen, being hounded through abuse of process of law for purposes sinister and oblique---Protection is based upon equity and can not be extended in every criminal case, prima face, founded upon incriminatory evidence, warranting custody for investigation purposes. Maqbool Ahmad Mahessar and others v. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and others 2021 SCMR 1166 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 109 34---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused committed murder of the brother of complainant---Record revealed that the accused-petitioner was an accused of hatching conspiracy for committing murder of the deceased---First Information Report as well as the statements recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. were short of details of such conspiracy/abetment as to its time and place besides names of the persons who heard about such conspiracy---Prosecution case was not that the accused-petitioner had even remote role in the commission of the alleged offence---Stance of the prosecution that accused-petitioner had been in contact with her husband and son at the relevant time could not be termed to be an incriminating circumstance as it would not lend support that she was planning any conspiracy through the said conversations, until and unless the same was surfaced---Transcript of the conversation inter se co-accused, son and husband of the accused-petitioner did not reveal anything about the details of the conspiracy---Accusation, or for that matter doubt, how firm it might be, in the estimation of the Court could not be termed or even looked into as an incriminating material, on the basis of which any legitimate inference with regard to the involvement of the accused-petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence could be drawn---Disclosure of the co-accused before the police during the course of investigation without…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492