MEHBOOB and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, including the husband and relatives of the injured victim, Mst. Waziran, concerning an FIR registered under allegations of causing injuries with Sota blows following a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail in the backdrop of a delayed FIR, previous enmity, and general role attribution in a domestic violence context. The Sindh High Court dismissed the criminal bail application and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants. The court held that the allegations involved grave maltreatment of a wife by her husband and family members within a domestic setting, supported by a medical certificate showing a head injury punishable for five years, thereby disentitling the applicants to extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that domestic violence cases involving severe injuries to a spouse prima facie negate claims of false implication for pre-arrest bail purposes.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to accused persons nominated in an FIR for causing injuries to a wife in a domestic dispute?
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR automatically entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail in matrimonial assault cases?
- Can a husband accused of maltreating his wife claim false implication without substantiating mala fide?
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--F.I.R. No, 59 of 2010 was recorded at Police Station, Dubar on 20-7-2010 for an incident, alleged to have taken place on 6-7-2010 at 0500 hours. Complainant stated that his daughter Mst. Waziran was married with applicant No, 1 and there was a matrimonial dispute between the parties. On the fateful afternoon, complainant stated that he was sitting outside the house of accused persons when the present four applicants (applicants Nos. 1 to 3, being sons of applicant No, 4) caused Sota blows to Mst. Waziran and injured her. She was taken for medical examination and medical report was issued on 9-7-2010 and, thereafter, F.I.R. Was lodged.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no specific role of any of the applicants has been disclosed in the F.I.R. Besides, there is 14 days delay and none of the injuries falls in the prohibitory clause., Learned counsel also submitted that there is previous enmity. Lastly, he submitted that the accused persons are regularly attending the Court below. He relied upon the case of Zaheer Ahmed Khan v. The State, 2003 SCM R 919.
3. ' Learned D.P.-G. Submitted that as far as delay in lodging of F.I.R, is concerned, it is explained that the injured was medically examined on the day of incident and medical certificate was issued after X-Ray etc. And treatment on 9-7-2010. He, however, submitted that this is a pre-arrest bail application and no mala fide on the part of Police has been shown and no ground alleging false implication has been urged.
4. ' I have considered the submissions, made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. ' In Zaheer Ahmed's case (supra), it was alleged against the petitioner that he fired twice from a Pistol at complainant in a Panchayat but the complainant luckily survived. Pre-arrest bail was declined on the ground that the petitioner had been named in F.I.R. And specific role had been attributed to him. Supreme Court observed that there was a family dispute and there was delay in lodging of F.I.R., which spoke for itself. The case is clearly distinguishable. In the present case, it is alleged that the husband of the injured Mst. Waziran and her father-in-law and two brothers-in- law ganged up against her and gave her repeated Sota blows outside almost at the door side of her home. The home, which should have provided protection, became a torture house for her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that no such incident had taken place. This argument is belied by medical certificate and if the incident had not occurred, as alleged, applicant No, 1, being the husband, should have moved to allege that his wife had been injured.
7. ' Learned counsel submitted that except one injury, all other injuries are on non-vital parts of body.
8. The injury to her head is punishable for five years. This is a case of maltreatment of a wife and a wife cannot be accused of going in a Court and falsely accusing a husband. At least, prima facie, it seems impossible and implausible. The injury to self-respect of wife, her self-image and her psyche is certainly, in such like cases, immeasurable.
9. ' Besides, this is a pre-arrest bail application. Result of the above discussion is that this Criminal Bail Application is dismissed. Bail already granted to the applicants, vide order, dated 30-11-2010, is recalled.
10. ' Needless to observe that the applicants shall be entitled to move a post arrest bail application and if such application is moved, the trial Court shall decide that application without, in any manner whatsoever, being influenced by any of the observations, made above. Pre-arrest .
Cited by 1 case
- MEER HASSAN Versus State 2023 YLRN 84