1994 PLP 659 (SCMR)
GHULAM ABBAS and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 659 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 659 (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 1994 PLP 659 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 659 (SCMR) (GHULAM ABBAS and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Kadri, Advocate and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993. `
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18‑7‑1993 passed m Cr. Misc. No. 2505‑B/1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused had a motive which they had themselves mentioned in their bail application submitted in the High Court‑‑‑Report submitted under S. 173, Cr.P.C. showed that only the opinion of the officer forwarding the challan was recorded without any reference to the material on which such opinion was based ‑‑‑Ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer was of no value for any purpose whatsoever‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, `J‑‑‑Ghulam Abbas and Fateh Muhammad charged of the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑7‑1993.
2. The main reason which prevailed with the High Court in refusing them the bail was that they were directly charged in the FIR and attributed spec roles.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had no motive whatsoever, that during investigation no recovery was effected from them, that Suleman the main offender has been identified and held responsible for 'the crime in report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioners could have a motive is borne out from the fact that in their application for bail submitted in the High Court they had themselves mentioned that they have been implicated in the crime for the reason that they had relationship with Suleman who had motive for the crime. In the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. only the opinion of the officers forwarding the challan is recorded and without any reference to the material on which such opinion is based. The ipse dixit of the Investigation Officers is of no value for any purpose whatsoever.
5. We find no case is made out for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./G‑422/S Leave refused.