Mst. TAHIRA NAQVI vs THE STATE
The applicant, Mst. Tahira Naqvi, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the death of Muhammad Azam. The prosecution alleged that the applicant facilitated the crime by making gestures before her co-accused husband shot the deceased. The applicant's counsel argued that there were no independent witnesses, the motive was unclear, and the applicant was falsely implicated. Crucially, the counsel highlighted that the applicant was a 21-22-year-old woman in the seventh month of her first pregnancy, requiring specialized care unavailable in prison. The Court, while rejecting arguments on the merits of the case, held that the advanced stage of pregnancy constituted sufficient grounds for bail. Relying on the precedent set in Mst. Yasmeen v. The State, the Court emphasized that a pregnant woman requires proper medical care and that her child should be born in a free atmosphere rather than in prison. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant subject to the furnishing of a bond.
- Does the advanced stage of pregnancy constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is a pregnant woman entitled to bail to ensure her child is born in a free atmosphere rather than in prison?
- Does the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the grant of bail to a female accused in a murder case based on her physical condition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Present applicant along with co-accused Intezar Hussain is facing trial in the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. For causing death of one Muhammad Azam at the platform of Railway Station, Khairpur on 1-1-2001 at 7-30 p.m.
2. ' According to the prosecution, applicant was talking " with deceased Muhammad Azam while strolling at the railway platform. At one stage she made certain gestures where after co-accused Intezar Hussain husband of the applicant came near and fired at Muhammad Azam with a pistol which resulted in the death of Muhammad Azam. According to the prosecution both the accused started running, but they were chased and arrested. However, the crime weapon is said to have been thrown by Intezar Hussain while running which too was recovered by the police party. After usual investigation police sent up both the accused for trial.
3. ' A bail application was filed before the learned trial Court on behalf of the applicant which has been rejected on 26-2-2001: ' Mr. Dawood Balouch learned counsel for the applicant has argued that there is no independent witness available in the case except police officials though the alleged incident is said to have taken at a busy place like railway platform. He has further argued that motive for the alleged offence is not visible in the case and that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police.
4. He has further argued that the applicant is in family way having pregnancy of seven months, as certified by the Medical Superintendent, Chandka Medical College, Larkana. He has also argued that the applicant is a young lady aged about 21/22 years and it is her first pregnancy, as such, she needs more care and proper look after which is not possible in jail. He has relied upon the case of Mst. Yasmeen v. The State 1989 SCM R 269 where under the similar circumstances considering the stage of pregnancy the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail to accused/applicant Mst.
5. Yasmeen. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Mst. Baboo Jannan v. The State 1990 PCr.L.J 326 where bail was granted to accused involved in a murder case taking into consideration first proviso of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mumtaz Siddiqui I am not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel touching the merits of the case. However, learned State Counsel has frankly and rightly conceded for grant of bail to applicant in view of the advance stage of her pregnancy.
7. ' Following the dictum laid down in Mst. Yasmeen's case (supra) and considering the facts that the applicant is a young lady and in advance stage of pregnancy who requires proper medical care am caution. Moreover, she is entitled to claim that the child whom she gives birth is born in free atmosphere and not in prison. Under the circumstances bail is granted to applicant in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Mst. Sangeeta vs The State and another 2022 PCRLJ 949