2011 PLP 170 (SCMR)
Malik AQEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 170 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | Malik AQEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 170 (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 2011 PLP 170 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 170 (SCMR) (Malik AQEEL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
- 3. We have heard Mr. M. A. Kazi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, who has taken us to some relevant dates of the occurrence, recovery of dead body, taking of samples of two swabs and sending them to the Chemical Examiner and arrest of the petitioner etc. shown at pages 17 and 18 of the Court file, to convince us that some manipulation was done by the Investigating Officer for obtaining DNA report in the positive.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 20-1-2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 315 of 2009).
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34
Prosecution, prima facie, was equipped with ample evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence
Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage was not warranted by law
No mala fide had been attributed either to the complainant or the Investigating Officer for false implication of accused in the crime
Pre-arrest bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Nemo for the State. Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
By this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of ,Pakistan, 1973, petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 395 of 2009, Police Station, KIA, Korangi Town, Karachi, which relates to the commission of offence, punishable under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Perusal of material placed on record reveals that initially the petitioner was admitted to pre-arrest bail by the trial Court, vide its order dated 11-6-2009, with the observation that prosecution will be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail upon receiving chemical report, and cause of death, if positive. However, on an application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., moved by the complainant before the High Court of Sindh on 12-9-2009, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.315 of 2009, vide order dated 20-1-2010, his pre-arrest bail was cancelled by learned Single Judge in Chambers.
3. We have heard Mr. M. A. Kazi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, who has taken us to some relevant dates of the occurrence, recovery of dead body, taking of samples of two swabs and sending them to the Chemical Examiner and arrest of the petitioner etc. shown at pages 17 and 18 of the Court file, to convince us that some manipulation was done by the Investigating Officer for obtaining DNA report in the positive.
4. Keeping in view such submission of the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the whole material placed on record and seen that, prima facie, ample evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the present petitioner with the commission of such offence. Needless to observe that deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not warranted by law; moreso, in a case where no mala fide has been attributed either to the complainant or the Investigating Officer for false implication of the petitioner in the crime.
5. This being the position, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.