2014 PLP 877 (YLR)
NOSHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 877 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J |
| Parties | NOSHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 877 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 877 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 877 (YLR) (NOSHER ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Prince Rehan Iftikhar Sheikh for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38
Blind murder
Prosecution report stated that present case was one of blind murder, and the complainant who was a passerby found body of deceased and reported such matter to the police
After almost one month of the registration of F.I.R., an alleged eye-witness of the occurrence came forward and implicated accused for the murder
Strangely alleged eye-witness of the occurrence remained silent and never disclosed fact of seeing accused commit the murder to the police for almost a month
Question as to what prompted the alleged eye-witness to disclose such fact to the police was still a mystery
Alleged confession of accused during police investigation while in custody had no evidentiary value and same could not be used against him
Prosecution had a heavy responsibility to discharge the onus of involvement of accused in the alleged crime
Present case was a classic example of a case of further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Art. 38
Alleged confession of accused during police investigation while in custody had no evidentiary value and same could not be used against him. Malik Saeed Mumtaz, Deputy Prosecutor-General with Naseem S.I. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.
Through this petition, Nosher Ali (Petitioner) seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No.624 of 2012 dated 10-12-2012 under sections 302/34 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Noor Shah, Sahiwal.
2. As per the report of the prosecution, it was a blind murder and the complainant who was a passerby found a body of a lady and reported such occurrence to the police on 10-12-2012. After almost one month of the registration of the criminal case on the application of one Muhammad Zakir, to the effect that he witnessed the occurrence when the deceased was being murdered by the present petitioner Nosher Ali, the petitioner was implicated as an accused.
3. The learned Prosecutor further argued that the present petitioner during police investigation has confessed his guilt.
4. It is very strange as to why Muhammad Zakir who stated to have been a witness of the occurrence of murder remained mum and never disclosed such fact to the police for almost a complete month and what promoted him after one month to disclose this fact is still a mystery.
5. The alleged confession by the petitioner during police investigation while in custody has no evidentiary value and the same cannot be used against him. The present case is a classic example of cases of further inquiry. The prosecution is under heavy responsibility to discharge the onus of involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period awaiting the conclusion of such trial.
6. Hence, in these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. MWA/N-6/L Bail granted.