House, bank cards, car keys: Husband’s allegations against wife in IHC bail case

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued a detailed verdict in the post-arrest bail case of a PhD-holder woman accused of torturing her husband, a member of the security forces.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro granted bail to the accused, Amna Saeed, against surety bonds of Rs200,000. She had been detained at Adiala Jail in connection with the case.

The court noted that the accused is a woman from a respectable family and a resident of Naval Anchorage, Islamabad. She was confined at Central Jail, Adiala, Rawalpindi, in connection with an FIR arising from what the court described as a domestic and matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband, the complainant, with whom she had been married for approximately 20 to 25 years.

According to the court order, the woman had initially filed a post-arrest bail petition before Judicial Magistrate-I, Section 30, West, Islamabad. The petition was dismissed through an order dated July 16, 2026.

The petitioner subsequently approached the Court of Sessions, Islamabad-West, under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). That petition was also dismissed through an order dated July 24, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Husband’s Allegations

According to the court order, the complainant alleged that his wife, Amna Saeed, had been quarrelling with and physically assaulting him for some time and had also allegedly beaten their daughters, Maham and Mishal.

The complainant alleged that around five months before the reported incident, his wife subjected him to a severe assault that injured his right eye. However, he claimed that he remained silent to protect his honour, his daughters and his reputation within his organisation.

He remained silent to protect his honour

It was further alleged that on January 15 and May 31, 2026, the petitioner assaulted the complainant with an iron rod at their residence, resulting in his hospitalisation. The complainant said that even during his hospital stay, he did not disclose the alleged assaults to anyone.

According to the FIR, on July 4, 2026, the woman allegedly attacked the complainant and his daughters with an iron rod. The complainant alleged that the attack was forceful and could have resulted in their deaths.

He further alleged that the petitioner struck him with the iron rod on his chest, back and legs. When his daughters attempted to intervene, they were also allegedly assaulted, sustaining injuries to their arms.

He transferred property to his wife out of fear

The complainant also alleged that, before the incident, he had transferred ownership of the house to his wife out of fear, while his bank cards and car keys had also been taken into her possession.

The complainant remained under treatment at the Combined Military Hospital (CMH), where he and his daughters were examined in the emergency department.

He alleged that he and his daughters remained under threat to their lives and accused the petitioner of attempting to murder them. Following the allegations, the FIR was registered.

Defence Counsel’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that she had remained in custody since her arrest and that the incident had allegedly arisen from a minor domestic dispute among family members.

The counsel further argued that, as the injured daughters were the petitioner’s own children, the allegation that she would intentionally cause them harm required deeper consideration.

IHC grants bail to PhD holder woman accused of torturing husband

It was also contended that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and that, in such cases, the grant of bail is generally the rule rather than the exception.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the prosecution produced CCTV footage which, prima facie, showed that after the incident, the petitioner herself shifted the complainant to the hospital for medical treatment.

The court noted that the medical record reflected multiple bruises and other consequences of the alleged assault but did not contain a clear opinion that any particular injury was dangerous to life.

Similarly, with regard to Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the material available before the court did not clearly establish which of the injured persons had suffered a fracture accompanied by dislocation.

Supreme Court Precedent

The IHC also referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Ishrat Bibi v. The State.

While examining the scope of the first proviso to Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court observed that the proviso represents a measure of welfare legislation intended to facilitate the release on bail of certain vulnerable categories of accused, including women, persons below the age of 16 years, and persons who are sick or infirm.

After considering the material placed before it, the IHC granted bail to the petitioner against surety bonds of Rs200,000.