1996 PLP 1685 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and another‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and another‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1685 (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 1996 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Munir Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1685 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD JAMIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAUKAT ALI and another‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan; Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1995.
- Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan; Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 10‑11‑1994 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 743/B of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑No direct evidence. was available against accused‑‑‑Last seen evidence collected by police during investigation might not be sufficient enough to exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused‑‑‑Reasons given by High Court for granting bail to accused were fully convincing‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.
This petition is directed against the order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 10-11-1994, whereby Shaukat Ali respondent No. l has been allowed post-arrest bail in case under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Muhammad Shakeel for the reasons that "the Inspector/SHO present in Court has stated that during investigation no other evidence could be collected and same is the opinion of the last Investigating Officer that despite efforts and having joined other persons in investigation, no further evidence could be gathered. The evidence of last-seen does not place the accused and the deceased in sufficient proximity to the time and space qua the offence of murder".
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we find that there is no direct evidence against the respondent No.1 The dead body of Shakeel was found near a Nullah on 17-11-1993. Muhammad Rashid P.W.4, appeared before the police on 21-11-1993 and stated that he had seen Shakeel and the respondent No.1 together in a Suzuki van in the Bazar of Kallar Syedan on 11-11-1993. The bazar of Kallar Syedan is not near to the place where the dead body was found. The exact time of the murder is not known.
3. In this view of the matter we feel that the last seen evidence collected by the police during the investigation may not be sufficient enough to exclude the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. The reasons given by the High Court for the grant of bail are fully convincing. No case for interference with the well-reasoned order of the High Court is made out.
4. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./M-3006/S Leave refused.