Pakistan Case Law
1970 SCMR 299

REHMAT ULLAH Alias REHMAN vs THE STATE AND Another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1970 SCMR 299
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1969
Date1970-01-16
Judge(s)Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Sajjad Ahmad and M. R. Khan
Authored bySajjad Ahmad
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the appellant by the Sessions Judge under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and a co-accused climbed onto a roof armed with guns, where the co-accused fired at another person but fatally hit the deceased. The appellant was granted bail by the Sessions Judge due to unclear vicarious liability, but the High Court cancelled it, reasoning that investigating officers' findings of innocence did not constitute legal evidence in a capital charge. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the bail, holding that while police opinions are not legal evidence, findings of innocence by three successive investigating officers cast doubt on the prosecution case and put one on inquiry. Consequently, the appellant's vicarious liability and common intention under Sections 301 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry, entitling him to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the opinion of investigating officers declaring an accused innocent, though not legal evidence, can warrant further inquiry into guilt for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Whether uncertain vicarious liability of an accused under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justifies the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court properly cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the accused's participation and common intention require determination at trial?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  • Section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
cancellation of bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentionpolice opinioninvestigating officer findingsmurder

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-Rehmat Ullah, the appellant herein, and his co-accused Karam Ilahi are being prosecuted for causing the death of one Mst. Fatima. According to the prosecution ease, the two accused armed with guns ascended the roof of their house from where Karam Ilahi fired a shot at Bakhsha who was sitting in his ihata along with other people. The shot missed Bakhsha but hit the deceased, Mst. Fatima, on her shoulder and caused her death.

2. Rehmat Ullah moved the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for his bail which was allowed on the ground, as appears from the order, that his vicarious liability for causing the death of Mst. Fatima was not clear.

3. Thereafter, an application under section 497(5), Cr. P. C. Was moved in the High Court for cancellation of Rehmat Ullah's bail which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 12th of December 1966. It is stated in this order that although three successive investigating officers have found Rehmat Ullah to be innocent, yet as their opinion is not legal evidence and the charge against Rehmat Ullah is one of murder, bail can--not be allowed to him except in exceptional and special circum--stances.

4. Ad interim bail was allowed to the appellant by this Court at the leave stage which was granted to consider whether the facts of the case justified cancellation of the appellant's bail by the learned Single Judge in. The High Court. .

5. This seems to us to be a case in which the guilt of the appellant certainly requires further investigation and inquiry to entitle him to bail under section 497 -.(3) of the Criminal Pro--cedure Code. The opinions of the investigating officers certainly do not constitute legal evidence, but being adverse to the prosecu--tion, they put one on an inquiry as to the veracity of the prose--cution case. The question of the vicarious liability of the appellant in regard to the commonness of his intention with his co-accused for firing at Bakhsha and its further extension to the result that followed, namely, the death of Mst. Fatima, will have to be determined at the trial to see if his guilt under section 301 /34,P. P. C. Is established as alleged by the prosecution.

Cited by 21 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.