Qayyum Khan vs The State and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a criminal case where the petitioner and a co-accused were specifically nominated in the FIR for firing at and injuring the victim. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground that the investigating officer found him empty-handed at the scene of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury and the investigating officer's opinion regarding him being empty-handed lacked credible evidentiary support—leading to disciplinary action and a recommendation for reinvestigation—the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The Court affirmed the High Court's order refusing bail, establishing that a flawed police opinion unsupported by evidence does not override specific nomination and role attribution in the FIR for the purpose of bail.
- Is an accused specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury entitled to bail merely because the investigating officer opined he was empty-handed?
- Can a flawed or unsupported opinion of an investigating officer override specific allegations of firing and injury in a criminal case for the purpose of granting bail?
ORDER
1. SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.---The Petitioner along with his co-accused Taimoor Khan fired at the injured and caused four injuries to him. He is specifically nominated in the FIR. The only ground which was agitated before us is that he was found empty handed by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence. On the previous date, when a certain query was made to the Investigating Officer as to on which evidence/material he had found the petitioner empty handed, the answer was in negative and that was the reason that the concerned SP A Investigation was directed to appear before this Court, who is present today . According to him, the opinion of the investigating officer is not based on any credible evidence and disciplinary action has been taken against him. He also confirmed that he had recommended for reinvestigation of the matter . In that eventuality when petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing injury to the injured, he is not entitled for the concession of bail. The High Court while refusing bail to the petitioner had given valid reasons which are not open to any exception. This petition is dismissed.