Mazal Khan vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is charged with the murder of his wife and the concealment of evidence under Sections 302, 201, 203, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the incriminating evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through the statement of the deceased's daughter, who directly implicated the applicant in the brutal physical assault of the deceased. The Court further observed that the medical evidence, showing multiple fractures and severe injuries, contradicted the defense's plea that the victim died from a fall due to epilepsy. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient material, including witness testimony and medical reports, to connect an accused to a heinous crime, and where the defense plea lacks evidentiary support, the court must decline the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when direct witness testimony and medical evidence establish a prima facie case of murder?
- Can a defense plea of accidental death due to a medical condition be accepted in a bail application without supporting medical records?
- Does the fact that co-accused have been granted bail automatically entitle the main accused to the same relief?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 203, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is seeking his release on bail pending trial in a case registered against him at Police Station Docks, being F .I.R. No. 157 of 2019 under Sections 302, 201, 203, 109 and 34, P .P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Joiya argued the matter at length in support of the instant bail application, which was rebutt ed by opposing the same by the learned APG. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and getting guidance from the citations relied upon, I have observed as under: a) The allegations against the applicant are that he has beaten his wife mercilessly on some domestic issue due to which she received severe injuries in the shape of the fractured hand, while bruise and blues were available on the entire body . It is also allegations against the applicant that he with the help of co-accused tried to conceal the offence.
In the instant case, the statement of the daughter of deceased as well as the applicant is important in which she had fully A implicated her father for brutality with her mother . b)(sic) According to the statement of Gul Dana, daughter of applicant, there was some quarrel between the applicant and his wife deceased Shadunuma on her marriage, which was fixed as exchanged marriage as he intends to take the sister of her bridegroo m for himself. On such issue, he has brutally beaten her mother owing to which she subsequently died. c) As per investigation, as well as in the light of the statement of the daughter of the applicant; the applicant is the main culprit of the alleged incident in which an innocent woman lost her life.
As per medico legal reports, the deceased received several injuries like multiple fractures on left wrist, bruise on both arms, knees, blue circles on both eyes, bump in back side of head, right side ribs were fractured, while blue marks were available on different parts. All these injuries indicate that the deceased was mercilessly beaten, which is not common in usual domestic violence and it amounts to third-degree torture and a cold-blooded murder . e) The incident has taken place within the house of the applicant and after the incident, he escaped from the scene of offence and arrested with great efforts of the investigators, which itself sufficient to involve the applicant in the commission of of fence. f) The motive is available against the applicant, as he intends to marry a girl and for the same purpose, he was ready to give the hand of his daughter in exchange of his own second marriage. The same issue was the cause of the incident in which deceased lost her life by the hand of the applicant. g) The defence has taken plea that the deceased was a patient of epilepsy and due to the effect of epilepsy; she fell down on the stairs and received injuries. It is noteworthy that no record of suffering of the deceased with the element of epilepsy is produced; besides such multiple injuries are not possible for an epilepsy patient who fell down in a fit of epilepsy . h) Although some of the co-accused have been granted bail but the part assigned to the applicant and the motive is very much available against him, while his own daughter has deposed against him, as such sufficient material is available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the alleged incident.
3. The upshot of the above discussion is that at least at this stage the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail, as such the post arrest bail of the applicant was declined through a short order dated 31.07.2019 and these are the reasons for the same.
4. Needless to say that the above observations are tentative in nature and the same are made only for disposal of this bail application, as such they have no bearing on the trial of the applicant.
Cited by 1 case
- Naseem Bibi vs Gull Faraz and another PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1217, 2021 PLD Islamabad 120