DR. SAMINA MATLOOB vs STATE through P.G. Punjab and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 322/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 212 dated 15.12.2016 at P.S. City District Lodhran, following the death of a newborn baby during delivery. Having failed to secure pre-arrest bail from the lower forums and the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court on grounds including lack of incriminating evidence, a belated FIR, and the bar on police investigation under Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010. The core legal question was whether the matter fell exclusively within the domain of the Punjab Healthcare Commission, barring normal criminal investigation and prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the belated report, failure to collect medical evidence, police exoneration of the petitioner, and the statutory bar under Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010 warranted confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Court laid down that matters falling within the regulatory domain of the Punjab Healthcare Commission cannot be investigated or prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land.
- Whether a matter falling within the domain of the Punjab Healthcare Commission can be investigated and prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land?
- Does a belated report and failure to collect medical evidence constitute grounds for confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether an investigating agency's report exonerating the petitioner is a circumstance for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 29, Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010
- Section 13(4), Punjab Healthcare Commission Act 2010
ORDER
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against her and two others under Section 322/34 PPC vide FIR No, 212 dated 15.12.2016 at P.S. City District Lodhran when failed to get the concession of pre-arrest bail from the lower forum as well as the High Court moved this petition mainly on the grounds that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to show that the newborn babe died during the course of delivery on account of negligence of the petitioner; that belated report of the occurrence goes a long way to belie the prosecution version and that in view of the provision contained under Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 the matter lying within the domain of the Commission could neither be investigated nor prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land.
2. The learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State did not dispute the assertions made by the learned ASC for the petitioner.
3. We have carefully gone through the record and considered the submissions of the learned ASC for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. P. G. Punjab for the State.
4. The record reveals that the incident was reported after two months of the occurrence. The police investigating the case did not apply for disinterment of the body of the newborn-babe to collect p medical evidence in support of the allegation. Belated charge and failure on the part of the investigating agency to investigate the case on proper lines, however, resulted in the loss of evidence. Even if there was any, the incident in this case could not have been investigated by the local police or prosecuted under the normal penal law of the land in view of the provision contained in Section 29 of the Punjab Healthcare commission Act. The Additional Prosecutor representing the State has not disputed the above stated legal position nor has he disputed that the hospital providing healthcare service is registered in terms of Section 13(4) of the Act. The report of the investigating agency exonerating the petitioner would constitute yet another circumstance making out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
5. For the reasons discussed above, we convict this petition into appeal, allow if, set aside the impugned judgment and confirm the ad-interim bail granted to the petitioner on 6.10.2017.