| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2913 2004 SLD 2913 2004 PLD 822 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 393-L of 2004, decided on 20th July, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-6-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr.Misc.No. 3153-B of 2004).
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, JAVED IQBAL AND FALAK SHER, JJ
A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddique, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Yasmeen Sehgal, A.A.G. and Rashid, Inspector for the State
Criminal Petition No. 393-L of 2004, decided on 20th July, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 11-6-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Cr.Misc.No. 3153-B of 2004).
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, JAVED IQBAL AND FALAK SHER, JJ
A.K. Dogar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddique, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ms. Yasmeen Sehgal, A.A.G. and Rashid, Inspector for the State
Sardar MUNIR AHMED DOGAR er
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (LXV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/427--Bail---Version of the prosecution in the challan was that the accused fired from the distance of 250 feet which had not caused injuries to any member of the opposite side nor was he responsible for the commission of the offence---Such opinion of the police being ipsi dixit, was not acceptable even at the bail stage. Manzoor v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/427--Bail---"further inquiry"---If the statements of prosecution witnesses were accepted by the Trial Court same would result in conviction of the accused, therefore, instead of embarking upon the facts of the case in detail, lest same may cause prejudice to the case of any of the parties, on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the accused was not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of "further inquiry"--Principles. If the statements of prosecution witnesses are accepted by the Trial Court it would result in conviction of the petitioner, therefore, instead of embarking upon the, facts of the case in detail, lest it may cause prejudice to the case, of any of the parties, on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be .released on bail on the ground of "further inquiry". There would hardly be a case which would not require "further inquiry" therefore, this element, by itself, is no ground for granting .bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Such orders are, on their very face illegal which do not fulfil the second condition regarding tentative opinion about the prima facie guilt or otherwise of the accused. Every hypothetical question, which can be imagined, would not mean that it is a case of further inquiry simply for the reason that it can be answered by the Court subsequently after evaluation of evidence. Broadly speaking, the condition-laid down in clause (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. is that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which means that the question should be such which has nexus with the,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492