Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 143 of 1983, decided on 11th May, 1983.

(From the order dated 29th March, 1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 299‑8 of 1983).

------Art. 185(3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 497 & 498 ‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑Bail‑Relevancy of opinion of investigation agency in regard to complicity of an accused person‑Held, depends on, soundness of material upon which such opinion is based‑Opinion of Police Officer based on ‑statements of respectable persons, such as Imam of local mosque and Vice‑Chairman of Union Council‑‑‑Held, High Court could take into consideration such opinion in granting bail‑No interference called for.

Rehmatullah v. The State 1970 S C M R 299 ; Karam Din v. Muhammad Sharif 1975 S C M R 230 and Muhammad Rafiq v. Abdur Rehman 1979 S C M R 377 ref.

B. A. Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. M. Zubair, A. A.‑G. with S. D, Qureshi, ;Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 25th April, 1983.

This is a complainant's petition seeking leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 29‑3‑1983, whereby bail was granted to Nazir Ahmad and Abdul Hafeez respondents, two of the three accused in a case under section 302/34, P. P. C.

2. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Amjad deceased was returning to his house on a bike at about 5:00 p.m. on 13‑12‑1982. He was followed by Muhammad Afzal complainant, Shaukat and Saghir Ahmad. While he was passing by the 1hata of the accused, Mukhtar Ahmad Co. accused armed with a gandasa and the two respondents, each armed with a hatchet, emerged from the 1hata and challenging the deceased opened the attack. Abdul Hafeez respondent struck with his hatchet at the left shoulder of the deceased, at which he fell down from his bike. Nazir Ahmad respon dent then gave three hatchet blows at his back, whereafter Mukhtar Ahmad co‑accused by inflicting repeated blows from his gandasa severed his left band. All the accused thereafter ran away, towards their Ihata carrying the crime weapons with them. The deceased succumbed to the injuries in hospital.

3. There were seven incised wounds on the person of the deceased of which two were grievous in nature. His left hand had been completely severed from the body.

4. There were three successive investigations, the first by the S. H. O. Khanewal, then by the A. S. P., Khanewal and again by the D. S. P. Head quarters, Multan, and they all expressed in favour of the innocence of the two respondents on the basis of certain statements recorded by them during the investigation.

5. The Additional Sessions Judge held that the opinion of the investigat ing agencies based on the respondents' plea of alibi was not helpful as there is ocular testimony fully implicating the respondents and attributing specific parts to them in the occurrence. The High Court, however, while expressing that the opinion of the police was not binding upon the Courts held that nevertheless "it is very much relevant in bail matters and makes out a case of further inquiry."

6. The relevancy to the question of bail of the opinion of the investi gating 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 facts which may furnish prima facie 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. This Court had considered such opinion to be relevant in Rehmatullah v. The State (1970 S C M R 299), Karam Din v. Muhammad Sharf (1975 S C M R 230) and Muhammad Rafiq v. Abdur Rehman (1979 S C M R 377). In the present case the opinion of the police officer is based on the statements recorded of some respectable persons, such as the Imam of the local mosque and the Vice‑Chairman of the Union Council. The High Court could, therefore, take into consideration such opinion. We do not consider that this is a fit case for interference. The petition is dismissed.

S. Q Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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