SHC grants bail to woman in husband murder case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday granted bail to a woman in the murder case of her spouse.

Dania Nathwani was booked by the police for allegedly abetting in the killing of her husband Shahbaz on June 7, 2021 within the limits of the Sachal police station. According to the prosecution, the applicant with help of her friend Jamshed had killed Shahbaz.

A counsel for the woman submitted that the case against the applicant was based on circumstantial evidence and the same was a figment of imagination of the investigation officer. He submitted that the prosecution’s own stance with regard to the applicant was restricted to aiding and abetting the main accused, Jamshed, and whether she had shared a common intention with the accused who pulled the trigger could only be decided after the trial court had examined the evidence.

An additional prosecutor general and the complainant’s counsel submitted that the applicant’s involvement in the case was fortified by the fact that even though she knew the killer, she did not disclose his name to the police. They added that an amount of Rs4.8 million was transferred by the woman to the accused’s bank account on November 15, 2021.

They submitted that the applicant later married Jamshed. A single bench of the SHC headed by Justice Omar Sial observed that the prosecution had laid great emphasis on the relationship between the applicant and the accused without really arguing on how that had a bearing on the case.

The bench observed that even if some relationship existed between the applicant and the main accused, that relationship ended in marriage and it must not necessarily mean that the applicant had colluded with the accused to kill her spouse.

The high court observed that not every acquaintance, friend, lover or spouse could automatically be held vicariously liable for the acts of his or her partner and whether the applicant shared a common intention with the accused who allegedly shot Shahbaz in the circumstance of the case would have to be decided after evidence was led at the trial.

The SHC observed that the entire evidence against the applicant was circumstantial and would need to be proved at the trial. The bench observed that the nexus between the applicant and the offence for which she was charged required further inquiry.

The high court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing surety in sum of Rs200,000.

Petition dismissed

The SHC on Thursday dismissed a petition against the removal of names of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and other Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leaders facing corruption charges from the Exit Control List.

Petitioner Mehmood Akhtar Naqvi maintained that the interior ministry had placed the names of the PM and other PML-N leaders such as Maryam and Shahid Khaqan Abbasi who were facing corruption charges before accountability courts on the ECL.

He submitted that after the removal of the Imran Khan’s government, the current government had removed the names of Shehbaz and other persons from the ECL. He submitted that the act of the federal government with regard to the removal of the respondents’ names from the ECL was without lawful authority and a glaring act of nepotism and favouritism.

He requested the high court to call record from the ministry of interior with regard to the removal of the respondents’ names from the ECL and direct the ministry to include the names again on the list.

A division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro, after hearing the arguments of the petitioner, observed that the petitioner had not placed any notification about inclusion of the names on the ECL and no notification was provided with regard to the removal of any person name from ECL.

The SHC observed that the petitioner was required to address the court on the issue of the maintainability but he was unable to do so. The bench observed that the exercise of writ jurisdiction was required to be undertaken upon application of an aggrieved person but the petitioner had made no submission before the court to suggest that he fell within the definition of an aggrieved person.

The high court observed that the prime minster had been impleaded in the petition notwithstanding that the Article 248 precluded such endeavour. The high court observed that protection envisaged in respect of the holders of cited offices had been a consistent feature of the constitutional history and the present petition disregarded the settled principle of law.

The bench observed that the petitioner was unable to set forth a case for the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction by the court and dismissed the petition in limine.