Mst. YASMEEN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Yasmeen against the refusal of bail by the High Court of Sind in a case involving the alleged recovery of contraband including Hasheesh, Heroin, and Opium under the Hudood Ordinance. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner, a young woman who was pregnant and incarcerated, was entitled to the concession of bail despite a previous withdrawal of her bail application. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the interim bail previously granted should be confirmed. The Court laid down the key principle that an advanced state of pregnancy entitles a female accused to bail to ensure that her child is born free rather than in prison, and so that she may receive the necessary medical care and attention.
- Whether a pregnant female accused is entitled to bail to ensure her child is born outside prison?
- Does an advanced stage of pregnancy constitute a valid ground for confirming bail in narcotics cases?
- Is a female accused entitled to bail on humanitarian grounds such as medical care and pregnancy?
- Section 3, Hudood Ordinance
- Section 4, Hudood Ordinance
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Mst. Yasmeen, the Petitioner has been refused bail twice by the High Court of Sind and she seeks leave to appeal against the second order dated 11th of July, 1988 whereby bail was refused to her the second time.
2. ' On the 31st of March, 1988 the Sanghar Police organized a raid on the house of one Nabi Bakhsh who managed to escape in the sight of the Police Party surrounding the house but the Petitioner was found inside and it is alleges that at her instance a number of articles contraband and others were recovered. The Petitioner and the absconder were charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Hudood Ordinance for possessing Hasheesh (12 K.G.), Heroin (1-1/2 K.G.) and Opium (1-1/2 K.G.).
3. ' In seeking bail the Petitioner had pleaded that she was physically infirm and pregnant, and being a woman was entitled to the concession of bail. The Civil Surgeon certified her to be physically and mentally fit but reported that she was pregnant of about five months.
4. The Sessions Judge last rejected her bail on 22-6-1988 and the High Court on 11-7-1988. The earlier application of the Petitioner had failed in the High Court for the reason given hereunder:- "Mr. M.A. Kazi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant states that he will not press this application for the time being as the case has not yet proceeded, and that he has not been able to lay hands on certain important documents.
5. ' In view of the above statement the application is dismissed for the time being as withdrawn."
6. ' The subsequent application was dismissed by the impugned order observing as follows:-- "Mr. Muhammad Ismail, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has, contended that the applicant is pregnant and is confined in a solitary cell where no other lady is available. I am sorry this ground was available even to the learned counsel who had moved first application which was withdrawn on 25-5-1988. No fresh ground has been urged. In view of the Supreme Court decision in PLD 1986 SC 173 the ground raised by the learned counsel cannot be considered as a fresh ground. The application is, therefore, dismissed."
7. ' Notice had been given to the State on 4th of August, 1988 when by an order she was admitted to interim bail furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (one lac) and on executing personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court, Sanghar.
8. We have converted this petition into an Appeal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The Petitioner was an inmate of the house from where recoveries were made. She is a young lady and is reported to be pregnant also. The pregnancy now is according to the reports-on-record at an advanced stage. We consider her entitled to claim that the child to whom she gives birth is born free and not in prison. Besides, she necessarily requires medical care and attention.
10. In the circumstances, we confirm the interim bail in the terms already granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. Sangeeta vs The State and another 2022 PCRLJ 949
- Mst. IQBAL BIBI vs THE STATE 1990 P Cr. L J 1831