1970 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Talat Farooq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497--Bail-[Murder case]-Accused persons alleged to have made a joint extra judicial confession-Such confession, held, of no evidentiary value and excluded from consideration-Accused admitted to bail.
Judgment & Decree
S. 497--Bail-[Murder case]-Accused persons alleged to have made a joint extra judicial confession-Such confession, held, of no evidentiary value and excluded from consideration-Accused admitted to bail. All and others v. Crown P L D 1950 B J 26 and Ratri Singh v. Crown 7 P R 1916 rel. Talat Farooq for Petitioner. Sardar A. Khalid for the State. This is a petition for bail under section 497, Cr. P. C 2. The facts are these. On the 29th of June 1969, Phala complainant made an application to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Qasur, wherein he stated that about two years ago, his son Rehmat Ali left his house, in connection with some business, but had not returned so far. He suspected Nazir son of Abdullah, Sardar and Nazir sons of Ilam Din, as the culprits. On this application F. I. R. No. 91 was registered at Police Station Raiwind. During the investigation the police arrested Shah Muhammad, Khushi Muhammad, Ali Muhammad, Sardar' and Nazir. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail of the petitioner on the ground that he had made extra judicial confession before three Lambardars. I have seen the statements of Ch. Allah Dad, Shahabuddin and Sardar Masta, wherein- they had stated that Sardar and Shah Muhammad jointly confessed the guilt. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Ali and others v. Crown (P L D 1950 B J 26) to argue that a joint extra-judicial confession of the two accused is not entitled to any weight. The learned Judges of the Bahawalpur High Court followed Ram Singh v, Crown (7 P R 1916). I have examined both these judgments. The ratio decidendi of these judgments is that such evidence is of no evidentiary value and should be excluded from consideration. 4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my opinion, it is a fit case for bail. The petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S. D. M., Qasur pending the decision of the case against him. Petition accepted. Bail allowed.