Find a Lawyer

KHALIL AHMED SOOMRO versus THE STATE

Sections 498 and 497 ? Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) - Panel Code LV 1860), Sections 337A (i), 337F (i), 337F (vi), 337L (2) and 504? Anger, jealousy Jafriya Demeya, unlawful intercourse, serious injury, intentional contempt for contempt of peace - 2 arrest guarantees, complainant complainant's bail - the crimes with which he is charged. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In the prohibited section of section 497, CCPhene when the defendants are entitled to post-arrest bail, their request for pre-arrest arrest, if denied, would be a case of isolation of the accused. The prospect and his arrest by the local police were notorious for the arrest. In the present case, it was seen that the net was thrown over and the victims exacerbated the injuries, leaving one or two dead. Attempts were made to show that the crime came under the provisions of the law, which was punished by five years or seven years - all Aspects, when considered contentious, are expressed by the Complainant Party - the defendants were guaranteed pre-arrest accordingly. [P 732, 733] A and C

PLD 2017 Supreme Court 730

Present: Dost Muhammad Khan,

Qazi Faez Isa and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ

KHALIL AHMED SOOMRO and others—Petitioners

versus

The STATE—Respondent

riminal Petition No. 945 of 2017, decided on 28th August, 2017.

(On appeal from the order dated 17.7.2017 passed by the High court of Sindh at Karachi in Crl. Bail Application No. 1089 of 2017)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

-Ss. 498 & 497— Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Penal Code LV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(vi), 337-L(2) & 504— ajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah damiyah, ghayr-jaifah munaqqillah, ier hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace— 2-arrest bail, grant of—Mala fide of complainant—Offences with which accused persons were charged were punishable by way of imprisonment which did not fall within the prohibitory part of S. 497, Cr.P.C.—When the accused persons were entitled to post arrest bail, their prayer for pre-arrest bail, if declined, would be a matter of technicality alone—Accused persons were likely to be humiliated and disgraced due to their arrest at the hands of the local police—In the present case, it appeared that net had been thrown wider and the injuries sustained by the victims except one or two, had been exaggerated—Seemingly efforts had been made to show that the offences fell within such provisions of law, which were punishable with five years' or seven years' imprisonment—All said aspects, when considered combindly, constituted mala fides on part of complainant party—Accused persons were granted pre-arrest bail accordingly. [p. 732, 733] A & C

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 498—Pre-arrest bail—Pre-conditions—Mala fide, inference of—

For grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre-conditions was that the accused person had to show that his arrest was intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior considerations—At prearrest bail stage, it was difficult for the accused to prove the element of mala fide through positive/solid evidence/materials, therefore, the same was to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case—Where certain events or hints to such effect were available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide.

[p. 732] B

(c) Police Rules, 1934—

— Vol. II, Ch. XXV, R. 25.19(1)—Medico-legal opinion—Description of injuries by the Medico-legal Officer in the examination report— Scope—Practice of describing the sections of penal law under which the injuries fell by the Medico-legal Officer—Supreme Court deprecated such practice by Medico-Legal officers and observed that they should not assume the status of the prosecution/prosecutors, as such was neither their domain nor they had lawful authority to direct or convey to the Investigating Agency the nature of offence; that the Medico-legal Officers should (only) describe the nature of injuries under the dispensation of law and not the provision of law, under which it fell. Ip- 733] D

Shuaib Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners along with Petitioners.

Zafar Ahmad Khan, Additional P.-G. Sindh for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th August, 2017.

law firms from Yazman Mandi lawyer