2022 PLP 273 (SCMR)
QAYYUM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 273 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ |
| Parties | QAYYUM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 273 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 273 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 273 (SCMR) (QAYYUM KHAN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 07.06.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Misc. No. 24735-B of 2021)
S. 498
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324
Murderous assault
Accused along with his co-accused allegedly fired at the injured and caused four injuries to him
Accused was specifically nominated in the FIR
Only ground which was agitated before the Court was that the accused was found empty handed by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence
Concerned Superintendent of Police (SP) appeared before the Court and stated that the opinion of the Investigating Officer was not based on any credible evidence and disciplinary action had been taken against him; he also confirmed that he had recommended for re-investigation of the matter
In such eventuality when accused was specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury to the injured, he was not entitled for the concession of bail
High Court while refusing bail to the accused had given valid reasons which were not open to any exception
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. [p. 274] A Muhammad Usman, DPG, Punjab along with Fayaz, ASI/I.O. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.
The Petitioner along with his co-accused Taimoor Khan fired at the injured and caused four injuries to him. He is specifically nominated in the FIR. The only ground which was agitated before us is that he was found empty handed by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence. On the previous date, when a certain query was made to the Investigating Officer as to on which evidence/material he had found the petitioner empty handed, the answer was in negative and that was the reason that the concerned SP Investigation was directed to appear before this Court, who is present today. According to him, the opinion of the investigating officer is not based on any credible evidence and disciplinary action has been taken against him. He also confirmed that he had recommended for re-investigation of the matter. In that eventuality when petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury to the injured, he is not entitled for the concession of bail. The High Court while refusing bail to the petitioner had given valid reasons which are not open to any exception. This petition is dismissed. MWA/Q-1/SC Bail refused.