IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1153 of 2018
Hina Naz..
..
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing & Short Order : 12.09.2018
Mr.
Javed Ahmed Chhattari, advocate
for applicant
Mr.
Tali Ali Memon, APG for
State
O R D E R
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The
applicant Hina Naz is
present on ad-interim bail, who is nominated in FIR No. 111/2018 under Section
324, 34 PPC lodged at PS Napier, Karachi and her bail before arrest was
declined by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Karachi South. Resultantly, she filed
the instant anticipatory bail application in which she succeeded in getting
interim relief vide order dated 20-08-2018. The interim relief was granted to
her without touching merits and now it is going to be decided on merit.
2.
I have heard the arguments
advanced from either side and perused record produced before me. After getting edified
from the valued submissions made at bar and scanning the record, I am going to
put my observation as under:
(a)
The
allegations against the applicant are that complainant Sumayia
claimed that she had friendship with one Zohaib
(husband of applicant), who promised her to marry but subsequently she came to
know that he had already solemnised marriage with applicant. Since, Zohaib did not contact her; therefore, she went to his
house where applicant and her husband fought with her due to which she received
injuries, and injury to her neck was allegedly caused by applicant.
(b)
It transpires from the FIR that the complainant firstly herself injured
by smashing her head with the mirror of dressing table; therefore, the claim of
complainant that the applicant attacked upon her with a piece of glass requires
further probe.
(c)
Apparently, the present incident was taken place due to a fit of
jealousy, despair, fury and depression as the person, with whom the complainant
was emotionally involved, refused to marry with her.
(d)
Since, the incident is admittedly taken place at the marital abode of
the applicant, where the complainant herself has approached; therefore, it
cannot be said that the applicant is the aggressor in the instant case.
(e)
As complainant herself has admitted that she
approached to the house of the applicant and collided her head with the mirror
of dressing table; therefore, on account of natural jealousy and enmity towards
the applicant, false involvement cannot be ruled out.
(f)
There is no preparation in respect of alleged attack upon the applicant
and she was not shown already armed with any weapon at the time of incident.
The piece of glass is usually not used as an armament to cause murderous attack
and there was no repetition, hence criminal intent or mens rea is missing.
(g)
The applicant is a woman as such her case covers under the first proviso
of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and nothing on the record is
available which makes it advisable to deviate from the rule of granting bail in
such type of cases.
3.
In the light of the above observations, I am of the considered view that a
case of pre-arrest bail has been made out, as such the earlier order for
granting interim pre-arrest bail is hereby confirmed on the same terms and
conditions.
4.
It
is further observed that if after getting bail, the applicant fails to appear
before the trial Court or tried to avoid trial and prefer to become absconded
or fugitive to law and trial than the trial Court will be justified to take
every lawful action against the applicant and her surety including cancellation
of her bail without making a reference to this Court.
5.
In
the instant case a short order was already announced on 12-09-2018 and the
above are the reasons for the same.
J U D G E