Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1688 2021 SLD 1688 2021 PLD 738
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 435 of 2021, decided on 17th May, 2021, Date of hearing: 17th May, 2021. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 05.3.2021, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 2378/B of 2020).
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Haider Mehmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ ANSARI

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 43

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 43---Bail---Accused implicated on basis of confessional statement of co-accused recorded under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C)---Such confessional statement of a co-accused needed independent corroboration even at the bail stage. Conviction of a co-accused could not be recorded solely on the basis of confessional statement of one accused unless there was also some other independent evidence corroborating such confessional statement. The principle ingrained in Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat was applied at the bail stage and the confessional statement of an accused could lead the court to form a tentative view about prima facie involvement of his co-accused in the commission of the alleged offence; but as in the trial, at the bail stage also, the prima facie involvement of the co-accused could not be determined merely on the basis of confessional statement of other accused without any other independent incriminating material corroborating the confessional statement. Javed Masih v. State PLD 1994 SC 314; Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman 1999 SCMR 2203; Mushtaq v. State 2012 SCMR 109; Naseem Malik v. State 2004 SCMR 283; Muhammad Irshad v. Muhammad Bashir 2006 SCMR 1292 and Ghulam Ahmed v. State 2013 SCMR 385 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Appreciation of evidence---Scope---At bail stage the court was not to make deeper examination and appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation or to conduct anything in the nature of a preliminary trial to determine the accuseds guilt or innocence---However, for deciding the prayer of an accused for bail, the question whether or not there existed reasonable grounds for believing that he had committed the alleged offence could not be decided in vacuum---Court, for answering the said question, had to look at the material available on record when the bail was applied for and be satisfied that there was, or was not, prima facie some tangible evidence which, if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused. Khalid Saigol v. State PLD 1962 SC…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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