PERVAIZ AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 42 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

PERVAIZ AHMED VS State Ss. 169, 497 & 173---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 504, 114, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abetment, abettor present when offence committed, rioting armed with deadly weapon and common object---Release of accused when evidence deficient---Bail bond taken by investigating officer---accused placed in column No.2 of challan---Plea of alibi---Call data record---Reliance---applicant assailed order of Trial Court whereby it had accepted the recommendations of the investigating officer, who had placed the name of two accused persons in column No.2 of the charge-sheet---allegation against accused persons was that one accused was annoyed with social activities of deceased persons and had issued them threats of dire consequences on several occasions---Investigating Officer had placed the names of accused persons in column No.2 of the charge-sheet on the plea of alibi---Investigating Officer present in court emphasized the copy of challan, showing therein that co-accused persons had connection with respondent/ accused---Mobile phone was secured and message description was shown in the challan---Investigating officer contended that accused person was the culprit, therefore, he had placed his name in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet and as per his opinion, persons named in column No. 2 of the challan were also accused and it was upon the Trial Court to examine such aspect---Held, if during the course of investigation, the investigating officer found anyone, having connection with crime or co-accused (leading to establish abetment/ conspiracy) then legally such person could not be placed in column No. 2 of the charge-sheet---Plea of alibi could not have been considered during investigation and pre-trial verdict could not have been pronounced---Call data record was never sufficient to doubt the presence of someone at a particular place because mobile phone was not part of the body but could be parted with and left at any place---Investigation report would lose its value if the defence could not establish that mobile phone was in fact with the accused at the relevant date, time and place---Said fact required evidence---Trial Court's order reflected that the same was completely against the norms of criminal administration of justice nor glaring legal positions were appreciated---High Court observed that respondents were required to join the trial as accused---application was allowed.

PERVAIZ AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 42 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported