Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2009 P Cr. L J 122

Mst. MANZOORAN BIBI vs THE STATE and another

Citation2009 P Cr. L J 122
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No,5655/CB of 2008
Date2008-10-07
Judge(s)M. Bilal Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Mst. Manzooran Bibi wife of Manzoor Ahmad, who is complainant in case F.I.R.

No,182, dated 23-10-2007, registered with Police Station Naddokay, District Narowal for an offence under section 302, P.P.C., by filing this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail allowed to Hafiz Muhammad Asif son of Muhammad Rafique (respondent No,3); by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide order, dated 19-5-2008.

2. Briefly the allegation against respondent No,2, according to the F.I.R., was that he had allegedly committed murder of his wife Mst. Khalida Bibi by administering to her some poisonous substance.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, it has been observed that although the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R., but admittedly he had been found to be innocent during the course of investigation and the death was declared to be a suicidal act. Being aggrieved of the investigation, the complainant has preferred a private complaint, which is at cursory stage. The perusal of ff.:: impugned order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given elaborate reasons for allowing bail to respondent No,2. For a bail granting order to be eligible to be interfered with under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the same has to be arbitrary, absurd or fanciful. The discretion left in the Court under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Is pari materia with the principles, which apply to the setting aside of the orders of acquittal. Reference may be made to the cases of Mian Dad v. The State and another 1992 SCM R 1286 and Muhammad Tayyab v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 597. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or absurdity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court.

4. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch