Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1057/B(BWP) of 1984, decided on 29th August, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 497(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/328/34‑‑Bail grant of‑ F.I.R. lodged after one year of occurrence‑‑Dead body exhumed after about seven months‑‑Extra‑judicial confession made after 9 months of occurrence‑‑Witnesses of extra‑judicial confession not reporting to police for 3 months till after registration of case‑‑Accused being woman, held, her case would fall under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. in circumstances‑‑B , therefore, was allowed.

Malik Yar Muhammad for Petitioner.

Rana Parvez Ahmad for the State.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Mst. Hurmat petitioner in a case under section 328/302/34, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Kot Samaba, vide F.I.R. No.96/84.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and her paramour Ata Muhammad in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of Rahim Bakhsh, the husband of the petitioner by poisoning.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a delay of one year in lodging the F.I.R. and that the evidence collected by the police is not sufficient to exclude hypothesis of the innocence of the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application. He has, however, frankly conceded that police has been able to collect only evidence of extra‑judicial confession made by the petitioner before Malik Chutta, Noor Ahmad, Muzaffar All and Ahmed P.Ws. to the effect that she had administered poison to the deceased which was supplied to her by her paramour Ata Muhammad co‑accused.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that no report was lodged at the time when the deceased had died on 15‑5‑1983 or immediately thereafter; that the dead body was exhumed on 22‑1‑1984 i.e. after about 7 months of the death; that the alleged extra‑judicial confession was made by the petitioner after 9 months of the occurrence; that although the extra‑judicial confession was allegedly made by the petitioner before the witnesses 3 months before the registration of the case yet they failed to bring this fact to the notice of police for 3 months; that the statements of witnesses of extra‑judicial confession were recorded police on 1‑6‑1984 when the F.I.R. under section, 302/34 P.P.C. was registered and that the petitioner being a woman, her case falls within proviso 2 to section 497, Cr.P.C.

5. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that it is fit case for the grant of bail to the petitioner. She shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C/Duty Magistrate, Rahim Yar Khan.

S.A. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.