Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ALLAH RAKHA versus THE STATE


In section 498 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 302/148/149 bail two persons were found to be falsely implicated and concluded by the Police Investigation Officer that Mutofi had seized his licensed revolver. That went by accident, death due to election rivalry and a false case against the complaining party. Upon a High Court inquiry, the investigating officer stated that his opinion of the incident was based on multiple investigations and that open and confidential inquiries did not disclose the inquiry officer's opinion, requesting dishonesty or bail. Guaranteed Approved

P L D 1984 Lahore 395

Before Ijaz Nisar, J

ALLAH RAKHA‑Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 959/B of 1984, heard on 29th May, 1984. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---‑

‑‑ S. 498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/148/149‑Bail‑Two co accused found to have been falsely implicated and were discharged by police‑Investigating Officer coming to conclusion that deceased was holding his licensed revolver which went off accidentally, resulting in his death and complainant party got a false case registered due to election rivalry‑On inquiry by High Court, Investigating Officer stated that his opinion about incident was based on examination of a number of persons and open and secret enquiries made‑Opinion of Investigat ing Officer not appearing doubtful, dishonest or male fide‑Application for bail granted.

Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Petitioner.

Aziz Qureshi for the State.

ORDER

The petitioner alongwith 5 others stands charged with the murder of Ali Ahmad deceased on 27‑9‑1983 with a fire‑arm.

2. Bail is pleaded on the ground that two of the co‑accused were found to have been falsely implicated and have been got discharged by the police. The petitioner has also have been found innocent in the investigation carried out by Zamurd Khan Inspector who came to the conclusion that the deceased was holding his licensed revolver which went off accidentally, resulting in his death and that the complainant party got a false case registered due to election rivalry. He, however, observed that in the presence of solid evidence furnished by the prosecution the matter be left to the decision of the Court.

3. I have enquired from the Inspector as to the basis of his opinion. According to him be has examined a number of persons to reach the conclu sion and also conducted open and secret enquiries.

4. It is a well‑settled proposition that the opinion of the Investigating Officer though not binding on the Court yet puts the Court on enquiry as to the guilt of the petitioner. In Muhammad Afzal v. Nazir Ahmad and others (1984 S C M R 429) it was observed that "the relevancy to the question of bail on the opinion of the Investigating Agency in regard to the complicity of an accused person will depend on the soundness of the material upon which it is based, if the investigation brings to light the facts which may furnish a reasonable ground for believing that an accused though named in the F. I. R. is not guilty, the opinion of the Investigating Officer based on such facts will be relevant." In Manzoor Ahmad v. Manzoor Ahmad and ‑8 others (1972 P Cr. L J 11), it was observed that if the Investigating Agency which is an important instrument of State for the purpose of prosecuting offender itself is not willing to say that the accused is guilty; then unless there are strong circumstances otherwise so as to come to another reasonable conclusion the Court should not discard such a conclusion for the purpose of bail.

It is not possible to doubt at this stage the opinion of the Investigating Officer or to say that it is dishonest or mala fide. Consequently, I grant the application and admit Allah Rakha petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Twenty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Daska.

M. Z. M. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous supreme court advocate from Domeli lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.