1994 PLP 1147 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1147 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1147 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1147 (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 1147 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mirza Masood‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 21st November, 1993.
- Syed Jamshed Ali Shah, Additional Advocate‑General for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 20‑6‑1993 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 262‑B of 1993/BWP.). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/324/148/149/379‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Principle that if the investigation itself exonerates the accused they are entitled to bail, was not attracted where the final aspect of the investigation agency was based on inadmissible evidence alone‑‑‑Charge levelled in the F.I.R., the injuries received by the complainant and the role attributed to the accused all consistently had made out a prima facie case disentitling them to bail‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Syed Jamshed Ali Shah, Additional Advocate‑General for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The three petitioners accused of offences udder sections 302,.324, 148, 149, 379, P.P.C. seek leave to appeal against the order of to Lahore High Court dated 20‑6‑1993 whereby their bail application was rejected.
2. An occurrence took place on 9‑1‑1993 at 3.00 p.m. in which three persons of the complainant party died and two got injuries. Of the three dead, Khan Muhammad deceased had 8 firearm injuries, Sharaf deceased had 11 firearm injuries and Zaman had 8 firearm injuries. Of the injured, Bashir had one firearm injury and Zakir Hussain complainant suffered two firearm injuries.3he petitioners were directly charged in the FIR for having fired at them. Notwithstanding this, the successive investigations established the alibi and non‑participation of these three petitioners and placed them in column No.2 of the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The trial Court as well as the High Court felt not satisfied by such an opinion of the investigation and refused the bail.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and he has by reference to decided cases emphasized that if the investigation itself exonerates the accused, they are entitled to bail. Undoubtedly that is the principle. The exceptional feature of this case is that the final report of the investigating agency is based only on inadmissible evidence. For determining the participation of the accused in the crime or their absence they have relied on the testimony of the respectables irrespective of the fact whether they were eye‑witnesses of the occurrence or not. It is not by reference to the evidence collected and to be presented before the Court by reference to which such conclusion has been drawn but it has been drawn by reference to the material which is not presentable before the Court. In such circumstances the two Courts were justified in refusing the bail and the principle invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not get attracted to the case at all.
4. The charge levelled in the F.I.R., the injuries received by the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioners all consistently make out a prima facie case which did not entitle them to bail notwithstanding the result of such investigation. Hence, no case is made out for interference and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./B‑227/S Leave refused.