GHULAM ABBAS and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Abbas and Fateh Muhammad against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-7-1993, which refused them post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the First Information Report with specific roles, given the contentions regarding lack of motive, absence of recoveries, and the conclusions in the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference, noting that the petitioners' own bail application acknowledged a relationship with the main offender possessing a motive, and reiterating that the opinion of investigating officers in a challan without underlying material holds no evidentiary value. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the denial of bail.
- Whether an accused directly charged in the FIR with specific roles is entitled to bail?
- What is the evidentiary value of the opinion of investigating officers recorded in a report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of recovery during investigation automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J---Ghulam Abbas and Fateh Muhammad charged of the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 18-7- 1993.
2. The main reason which prevailed with the High Court in refusing them the bail was that they were directly charged in the FIR and attributed specific roles.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had no motive whatsoever, that during investigation no recovery was effected from them, that Suleman the main offender has been identified and held responsible for the crime in report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioners could have a motive is borne out from the fact that in their application for bail submitted in the High Court they had themselves mentioned that they have been implicated in the crime for the reason that they had relationship with Suleman who had motive for the crime. In the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. Only the opinion of the officers forwarding the challan is recorded and without any reference to the material on which such opinion is based. The ipse dixit of the Investigation Officers is of no value for any purpose whatsoever.
5. We fmd no case is made out for our interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.